From news Sun Oct 1 15:54:39 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: rartus@lava.net Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s Date: 1 Oct 1995 22:14:46 GMT Organization: NotMuch Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <44n3sm$j7v@kragar.kei.com> References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <44h7kc$8c@kragar.kei.com> United was the startup carrier for the 767 and had a direct hand in the design of the original. They needed to have a Flight Engineer because of their pilot contract at the time required one in all jets. That item is no longer in the contract, it was dropped years ago. Often the lead off airline has quite a say in what will be installed in new airliners. United has been the lead off airline in numerous other airliners, such as the 737, the 727, the DC-10 and the latest 777. From news Mon Oct 2 12:20:13 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: rartus@lava.net Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: 777F Date: 2 Oct 1995 13:56:36 GMT Organization: NotMuch Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <44or2k$adb@kragar.kei.com> References: <44k9k6$b9g@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> > How would a 777F compare to say the MD-11, or 747-100/200F > and so forth? UPS is about to fly 767-300Fs beginning this fall. From news Mon Oct 2 12:21:21 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: chuanga@wis.com (Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: 777F Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 2 Oct 1995 14:02:22 GMT Organization: International Internet Association. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <44orde$adb@kragar.kei.com> References: <44k9k6$b9g@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Robert Ashcroft (rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : One thing I haven't heard anything about is the potential of the 777 : as a freighter. How would a 777F compare to say the MD-11, or 747-100/200F : and so forth? Federal Express, for example, seems to think very highly : of the MD-11 as a freighter. Shouldn't the 777 be even better, since : it has similar capacity but one fewer engine? Long time ago, few operators bought brand new freighters. Thus, most freighters were converted from passenger aircraft. The MD-11 has some performance shortcomings that are unfavorable for long-haul passenger ferrying but are not critical for cargo operations. Perhaps that's why FedEx is getting AA's MD11s and convert them to freighters, and Korean Air is also converting their MD11s to freighters. Other MD11F operators that I'm aware of are World Airways and EVA Airways. For most other aircraft, if there is a freighter version offerred by the original manufacturer, the freighter version is usually launched many years after the passenger version. For example, the 767F is launched some 13 years after the 767 was launched. The 747-400F was launched soon after the 747-400 was launched, but the first freighter was built probably five years after the first passenger aircraft. Therefore, I think it will be quite a few years down the road before the 777F is launched. On a related subject, it was speculated that Boeing is being pushed by EVA Airways (which has earlier announced its intent to order four 777s) to launch the Combi model. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From news Tue Oct 3 13:09:47 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: acvitale@magg.net (acvitale) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s Date: 3 Oct 1995 14:33:53 GMT Organization: magg.Net Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <44rhkh$efd@kragar.kei.com> References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <44h7kc$8c@kragar.kei.com> <44n3sm$j7v@kragar.kei.com> > Often the lead off airline has quite a say in what will be installed in >new airliners. United has been the lead off airline in numerous other >airliners, such as the 737, the 727, the DC-10 and the latest 777. Eastern was the adopting carrier for the 727 Lufthansa was the adopting carrier for the 737 United did not start either of these two aircraft. Albert Vitale From news Wed Oct 4 20:00:39 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: khowie@medio.net (Keith Howie) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry Date: 4 Oct 1995 23:01:50 GMT Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <44v3ou$2in@kragar.kei.com> References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <44h7kc$8c@kragar.kei.com> <44n3sm$j7v@kragar.kei.com> <44rhkh$efd@kragar.kei.com> acvitale@magg.net (acvitale) wrote: >> Often the lead off airline has quite a say in what will be installed in >>new airliners. United has been the lead off airline in numerous other >>airliners, such as the 737, the 727, the DC-10 and the latest 777. >Eastern was the adopting carrier for the 727 >Lufthansa was the adopting carrier for the 737 Eastern and United "co-launched" the 727. Although technically, Lufthansa placed the first order for 737's, United's (larger) order shortly thereafter was crucial to the success of the program. Boeing had been courting United for the order and thus United had a lot to say about what went into the 737. BTW, what is an "adopting" carrier? Keith From news Wed Oct 4 20:06:59 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: jeromed@goodnet.com (Jerome Dawson) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s Date: 4 Oct 1995 23:22:28 GMT Organization: GoodNet Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <44v4vk$2in@kragar.kei.com> References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <44h7kc$8c@kragar.kei.com> <44n3sm$j7v@kragar.kei.com> In article <44n3sm$j7v@kragar.kei.com>, rartus@lava.net says... > Often the lead off airline has quite a say in what will be installed in >new airliners. United has been the lead off airline in numerous other >airliners, such as the 737, the 727, the DC-10 and the latest 777. Actually, I believe Lufthansa was the lead-off carrier for the 737. United was the lead for the 737-200, which became the predominant type until the CFM-powered models came along. Since only two or three dozen -100's were built the Lufthansa lead-off status could be considered a "blip" in the record but, technically, they were first. Cheers! From kls Wed Oct 4 21:27:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: Addison Schonland Subject: Re: What's wrong with the MD-11? References: <446mh7$bcp@kragar.kei.com> <449dks$euo@kragar.kei.com> <44ckse$4nr@kragar.kei.com> <44f0oj$nd4@kragar.kei.com> <44fq6u$1lf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIC Research, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 21:27:26 What's wrong with the MD11? Absolutely nothing! I regard this as the most comfortable wide body I've flown. I've been on SR and AA's planes...guess which is better. The configuration of the plane is an airline decision, so poor seating layouts are the airline's fault. I found the MD11 quieter than the 747-400. All my flights on 747-400s and MD11s have been in first or business class. The best 747-400 I have flown has been that of SAA which flies the world's longest nonstops. As regards the MD11s range problem...I heard from someone at MD that the problem was a "5%" problem of which fuel burn was 3% and drag was 2%. Both have been fixed and the plane now does well. SR loves their airplanes as they were involved with the design. Talk about range problems...check on the range problems the 747-400s have between the US west coast and Hong Kong in winter. Or between Hong Kong and London. Virgin's A340 stops in Helsinki sometimes to refuel while BA refuels its 400s at Copenhagen. Headwinds are a problem for all three long range airplanes. Regarding the spurious allegation by AA that pax don't like the MD11...that is absolute crap. I have data (which I cannot release because its owned by the Feds) that shows the MD11 does as well as (and in some cases better) than the 747-400 or 767 in terms of pax evaluation. For the project I work on, we survey over 70 airlines in the world. I have seen the data, and I know better than JD Power. MD has taken such a negative hit with this airplane. It has been most unfortunate that MD has not spent the resources to improve its image. For example the first power controlled landing recently (see the Dryden home page). The MD11 really is a great plane. There are very few poor airplanes, that qualify as dogs, no matter who builds/built them. Mostly those that qualify as dogs are due to airline managers thinking they know everything and not listening to customer research. For example, try the seating in an AA 767 in business class. Great plane, overcrowded cabin. Or try a UA 747-400 in first..no personal video. On the other hand you can see the positive impact research has had at BA, Cathay and Singapore. I could go on and on. - -- Best Regards, Addison Schonland - Phone (619) 637-4000 Fax (619) 637-4040 From kls Wed Oct 4 21:27:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: AC CRJ:modeller needs help Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: poster Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 21:27:26 Has anyone closely observed an Air Canada RJ recently? I am trying to finish a scale model of one but cannot determine whether the wing and/or horizontal stab. surfaces are painted white or whther they (aprt from the leading edge) are a variation of the usual silver/grey. If anyone can positively answer this question for me I'd be very grateful. I know that Air Canada has Web pages illustrating the aircraft but I suspect its a retouched photo based on a Canadair prototype so its accuracy is in question. Cheers, - -- Niels (reply to: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk) (moderator of the Airliner Modelling e-Mail List) From kls Wed Oct 4 21:27:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: jtalbot@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Justin Talbot-Stern) Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Information Technology Services, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 21:27:26 >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. I had the opportunity to work in Ansett's Engineering department during my summer holidays and spent a lot of time in their 767-200 cockpits performing CRT diagnostic tests and FMS data uploads. As for Ansett being the only airline in the world to operate three crew 767, I think this is wrong. Last January, Ansett took delivery of an additional used 767-200 from Britannia Airways and I think it was a three crew aircraft as well. However, the 767's they're thinking of acquiring over the next few years have the standard two-pilot cockpits. I also had the chance to sit in the cockpit for a 767 flight and it seemed that the Flight Engineer was paid ~$80,000 to basically pass the food from the flight attendants to the pilots, and got the best view in the house! Justin Talbot-Stern http://www.usyd.edu.au/~jtalbot/ From kls Wed Oct 4 21:27:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Aircraft Order Update (Oct 3, 95) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 21:27:27 The first half figures now include totals for each of the three major engine manufacturers (GE, P&W and R-R) and the two engine consortia (CFMI and IAE). Just a disclaimer: I compiled this list strictly as a hobby using publicly available information, thus, the figures may not be 100% correct. *** 1995 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Oct 3, 95) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| 1| CFMI | 30 4 |25 42 14 4 | | s| GEAE | | 4 8 | 2 | t| IAE | 8 6 | | 29 | | P&W | 2 | 4 4 4 3 | 7 4 | H| R-R | | 6 3 | | a|Unknown| 2 10 | 6 23 | | l|_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| f|Subtot | 4 30 8 16 0 4 |25 42 14 4 14 10 15 26 0 | 36 6 | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N| LH | 1 | 4G | | N| NH | | 10P| | N| BR | | | 6I | N| MS | | 3U | | | Itochu (for LG) | 2 | | | SK | | | 2I | | S'pore Aircraft (for AZ) | 3G | | | MS | | 3 | | | ILFC | | 40 11 3 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 0 5 |27 82 25 7 18 10 18 32 10 | 44 6 | | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 6 3 ) | B O E I N G ( 2 2 9 ) |M D(50)| Letters of Intent |1st hlf| | 8 8 20 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N| CA | | 15 | | N| HV | | 8 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 0 5 |22 82 25 15 8 7 15 55 20 | 44 6 | | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 6 3 ) | B O E I N G ( 2 8 8 ) |M D(50)| 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. C,G,I,P, or R stands for 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. (The MD80/90 order can be easily distiguished by engine selection: P for MD80 and I for MD90). 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. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Wed Oct 4 21:27:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chris tassio Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: news@shiva.usa.net Organization: HIGH-LIFT WINGS INC. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 21:27:28 Ken, I fly the A300-600R the MTOW for our ops is 378,530 lbs and our MLW is 308,650 with no fuel dump. The aircraft is certified to land at the MTOW, however any land ing over the MLW requires a log entry and maint. action in the form of an over-weight landing check prior to next flight. Hope this is helpful. chris From kls Wed Oct 4 21:27:28 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: 04 Oct 95 21:27:28 If one were to have an emergency shortly after takeoff requiring an emergency landing, we accomplish an "overweight landing" checklist and return. >From a aircraft standpoint, it's a maintenance check for damage. From kls Wed Oct 4 21:27:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 21:27:28 > 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 The 767 came out initially without fuel dump capability. Half of our 767-300ERs at Qantas also don't have them - Boeing decided it wasn't necessary and then changed their minds. Simon. From kls Wed Oct 4 21:27:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 21:27:28 >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 ... *Are* built for two-pilot operation, yes, but not *were* built that way. The first 30 767s were all built with an FE station. When it was clearly demonstrated that the FE was useless, these aircraft were already either built or far enough along for an in-place change to disrupt the production line. The decision, as documented in the Harvard Business Review, was to keep the line going and retrofit the first 30 aircraft after completion. For more details, see the sci.aeronautics.airliners archives, where the previous iterations of this discussion are still available. The best discussion is titled "Aha! The three-man 767 rears its ugly head ..." and took plane in late 1992. -- 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 Oct 4 21:27:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <44h7kc$8c@kragar.kei.com> <44n3sm$j7v@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 21:27:28 >United was the startup carrier for the 767 ... They needed to have a >Flight Engineer because of their pilot contract at the time required >one in all jets. Obviously not true, since United had been flying the 737-200 with a two-pilot crew for over a decade before they even launched the 767. The requirement was an FAA requirement, dropped when Boeing clearly demonstrated that an aircraft as large as the 767 could be handled by only two pilots without safety concerns. -- 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 Oct 4 22:52:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cwpoon@technet.sg (Poon Chia Wee) Subject: Aircraft Maintenance Conference - Singapore '96 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:23 Organization: Singapore Institute of Aerospace Engineers New Challenges in Aircraft Maintenance & Engineering '96 Conference 1-2 February 1996 The Westin Stamford, Singapore in conjunction ASIAN AEROSPACE '96 Organised by: Singapore Institute of Aerospace Engineers Supported by: Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Federal Aviation Administration Flight Safety Foundation International Federation of Airworthiness Economics Development Board of Singapore Official carrier : Singapore Airlines Speakers at the conference: Wong Woon Liong, Director General Civil-Aviation Authority of Singapore Robert Tan, Chief Executive, SIA Engineering Company Bob Williams, Director Maintenance, Joint Aviation Authorities Craig Beard, Director, FAA and President Elect, International Federation of Airworthiness Robert Peel, Technical Director, Orient Airlines Association Jack Hessburg, Chief Mechanics, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Thomas Sullivan, President, the AGES Group, USA Frank Leftwich, President, Aviall Asia Ltd, Hong Kong Dr. Otis Chen, Managing Director, Pratt & Whitney, Singapore Thomas A Brisken, GM, GE Engine Services, USA John Chambers, Product Support Specialist, Rolls-Royce Aero Engines Ltd George Ebbs, President, The Canaan Group Ltd - USA G Mistrai, Dir of Engineering, Airbus Industrie, France Abbas Hossain, Dir, International Marketing, Honeywell Inc, USA Dennis M helgeson, Dir, CNS/ATM system, Colllins Air Transport Div, USA Brinder Bhatia, SVP, matsushita Avionics Development Corp, USA Prof. Moshe ben-Bassat, President, IET-Intelligent Electronics, Israel William L.Hubbard, MD, Nordam Singapore Sam kantimathi, President, Fatigue Concepts, USA Dr. Paul Tan, Technical Manager, FAA, USA Rick hatton, President, GATX-Airlog, USA Fee per delegate S$1500 Early Bird Fee S$1300 (if registered before 30 Nov 95) Group Discount S$1300 (if 3 or more from same company) Contact: Temasek Management Tel (+65) 225 0522 Fax (+65) 225 8705 Mail: 8 Shenton Way #39-01 Treasury Building Singapore 068811 REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE email: cwpoon@siae.com.sg From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Morris B. Subject: Taking off into Wind Shear Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:24 Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Greetingz!! Last friday evening at about 640 pm on approach to DIA i was listening to UA's Channel 9. I heard a 727 pilot report a loss of 25 kts on climbout off of runway 8. The controler verified the low level wind shear and added that a microburst was building up. The crew of the plane to take off on runway 8 seemed to have every intention of flying through the windshear and possible microburst. The person sitting next to me and i were commenting on the stupidity of this person. What do you all think? morris -- Internet: mbas@unm.edu WWW: http://www.unm.edu/~mbas/index.html ICBM: 35 05 04 N 106 39 From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch) Subject: Re: 757 engine (fan?) noise during freewheel References: <44n541$r9e@pcnet2.pcnet.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Georgia State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:24 Da_Man@Old.Heros.com (Chuckie Yeager) writes: > and all the bogus home depot parts they use fracture *all the time*. Hey ! Home Depot carries *quality* materials ! :-) Seriously, though ... I heard the military once flew a helicopter out of where it landed (due to an emergency) by using hardware store nuts and bolts ... seems the milspec ones where a tad under spec ... (grain of salt time) - Jonat han -- musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu | "I Hate it when I can't trust | Atlanta 1996 !! jdeitch@aol.com | my own technology!" - LaForge | Play Pinball !! http://www.gsu.edu/~musjndx |------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- "Thrills! Chills! Magic! Prizes!" -- Hurricane Roddenberry, Asimov, Henson, Dr. Seuss, Mel Blanc, Friz Freleng ... Sigh ... From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jon Ward Subject: Re: 757 engine (fan?) noise during freewheel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk Organization: The End at Infinity Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:25 barr@netcom.com "Keith Barr" writes: > Centrifugal force holds the blades in the proper position when the engine is > running. Hmmm, correct me if I am wrong, but I am _sure_ that there is no thing as centrifugal force. There is a combination of centripetal acceleration and tangental velocity in circular motion, which is what I assume holds the fan blades in place. Jon Ward -------- Work : JRW@liyorkrd.li.co.uk | #include "disk$standard:disclaimer.h" Rest : Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk | "You look up to God, and find Venus Di Play : Nyar@blibble.demon.co.uk | Milo" My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gtokarski@aol.com (Gtokarski) Subject: 777 Fly by Wire Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: gtokarski@aol.com (Gtokarski) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:25 On the A320/330/340 and the 777, does fly-by-wire mean that the only connections between the pilot and the control surfaces are wires and servos, or does the term simply mean that the control inputs are passed through a computer before they are transmitted to the control surfaces via conventional hydraulic lines and actuators? George Tokarski Elgin, IL, USA From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: walter@zaiko.kyushu-u.ac.jp (Dr. Walter Pietsch) Subject: 777 to ANA - When?? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci. and Comm. Eng., Kyushu Univ., Fukuoka, Japan Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:25 I would like to know when Boeing delivers the 777 to ANA. As far as I know ANA was the second airline with a firm order on the 777. Thanks in advance! W.Pietsch From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kinsler@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu (Mark Kinsler ) Subject: light switches Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ohio University, College of Engineerng & Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:26 A quick question about the reading light switches over the passenger seats in the Boeing 737. These switches feel like momentary-contact pushbutton switches, which would normally not toggle a lamp on and off like they do. If these lights use the "intelligent power" chips used in the rest of the aircraft, they would work as follows: When the button is pushed, the "intelligent power" chip on the lamp sends a request code down the 28 volt power bus to a power processor, which then sends a turn-on or turn-off code back down to the power chip, which turns on the light. This rather convoluted scheme is used on the zillions of indicator lights and associated switches in the aircraft to avoid the use of extra wiring for switching purposes: every device is connected only to the power bus through a power chip and is controlled by digital signals sent through the power bus from a central processor. These signals originate in chips that connect switches and sensors to this same power bus. Are the passenger reading lights controlled in this way? If so, they'd be one of the few opportunities that a citizen would have to see an intelligent power distribution system. Mark Kinsler From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: darsys@pro-entropy.cts.com (Eric A. Seiden) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pro-Entropy +1-305-994-3578 (DAR Systems Int'l -- Miami, FL) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:27 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>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. This is correct. It stretches about 12 inches during high-altitude flight due to air friction. This figure is mentioned in the book one can find in Concorde's check in lounge if you're a passenger. This extreme metal stress is why Concorde's life expectancy is nearing its end. Originally planned to die just about now, new metals technology has enabled modifications to extend the life of Concorde until 2003. By then Concorde will not be safe for flight and unless Boeing/Airbus care to make Concorde2 or somesuch that will be the end of modern supersonic travel. (Try it. It's worth every cent.) -- E == Internet: darsys@Pro-Entropy.cts.com ("Real" Name: Eric A. Seiden) RSH Contact for NHL Florida Panthers & Admin NHL Florida Panthers Mailing List From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gtokarski@aol.com (Gtokarski) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: gtokarski@aol.com (Gtokarski) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:27 I also understand that the floor is on rollers to accommodate the thermal expansion at speed. From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: e.h.bogart@larc.nasa.gov (Ed Bogart) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:27 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >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. If I remember my physics of flight class (long, long ago), it is the compression of the airstream, not friction that causes most of the heat. This is why the real hot spots are on leading edges where the flow speed is zero. Ed From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rich Eustace Subject: Aviation Fuel Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Bristol, UK Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:28 Dear All, For some research I am doing I am looking for the price of Aviation Fuel. I am also looking for the fuel usage of a medium size aero-engine for say a 737 or an A320/340 per hour. Where can I get this kind of information? Thanks for the help Rich From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ANNZ94A@prodigy.com (Daniel Wills) Subject: Re: Fuel tank safety mech.(question) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:28 >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. Good idea. Alot of considerations though - weight,cost,etc. Fuel tanks in comm. jets have alot of seperate cavities so foam would have to be piped to all areas. Sounds like a difficult mod on exsisting jets but new production - maybe. - DAN AA W ANNZ94A@prodigy.com From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Fuel tank safety mech.(question) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:29 misc1666@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote: >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. My background is structural firefighting, not aircraft, so I'm no expert on the subject. That said, I will state that the idea has been considered, even tested; basic result is that the added weight of foam and equipment, the danger of a falsely-triggered system, the fact that foam does not really work by simply pumping it into the fuel tanks, etc., all work against your idea. From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jon Wright Subject: Twinjet single-engine performance question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:29 I had a question concerning a recent thread about ETOPS that was in misc.transport.air-industry. I understand a twin has to be able to take off and fly on a single engine and therefore under normal conditions (with both engines)it is way overpowered. How overpowered are we talking? Could a twin with a typical payload and on a typical runway start its roll and take off on a single engine? Or do the designers only worry about engine failures on the "wrong" side of V-1? And has the extent of overpoweredness been consistent over time? That is, do the early twins have the same relative single-engine performance as contemporary planes? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Wright jwright@blarg.com voice 206-635-0338 fax 206-635-0339 I'm a potato and I'm so hip From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Twinjet single-engine performance question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:30 >I understand a twin has to be able to take off and fly on a single >engine and therefore under normal conditions (with both engines) it >is way overpowered. >How overpowered are we talking? This came up here years ago, and I went off and compiled a table of thrust-to-weight ratios for various "typical" configurations at MGTOW. The discussion is in the archives at http://www.chicago.com/airliners but it's been so long it seems like it might be interesting to revisit it. Here's the table again, sorted by thrust/weight with all engines operational: model pass range MGTOW engines thrust p/wt 1out ----- ---- ----- ----- ------- ------ ---- ---- Concorde 100 ? 408 4 Olympus593 38000 0.3725 0.2794 757-200 186-220 4550 220 2 PW2037 38250 0.3477 0.1739 737-500 108-132 2500 115.5 2 CFM56-3B1 20000 0.3463 0.1732 MD-90-40 208 - 163.5 2 V2500-D5 28000 0.3425 0.1713 A321-100 180-220 ? 181.2 2 CFM56-5B2 31000 0.3422 0.1711 A320-200 140-179 ? 162 2 CFM56-5A3 26500 0.3272 0.1636 MD-90-30 172 - 156 2 V2500-D5 25000 0.3205 0.1603 757-200 186-220 4550 240 2 PW2037 38250 0.3187 0.1594 737-300 141 2950 139 2 CFM56-3B2 22000 0.3165 0.1583 737-400 159 2800 150.5 2 CFM56-3C1 23500 0.3123 0.1561 DC-9-10 85 1300 90.7 2 JT8D-7 14000 0.3087 0.1544 A300-600R 230-375 ? 375.9 2 CF6-80C2 57900 0.3081 0.1540 767-200 174-290 4566 315 2 CF6-80A 48000 0.3048 0.1524 767-300(ER) 204-290 6650 400 2 PW4060 60000 0.3000 0.1500 MD-11 293-410 7980 618 3 CF6-80C2D1F 61500 0.2985 0.1990 737-300 141 2650 135.5 2 CFM56-3B1 20000 0.2952 0.1476 767-300(ER) 204-290 6650 400 2 CF6-80C2 57900 0.2895 0.1447 A330 280-440 ? 467.5 2 CF6-80E1A2 67500 0.2888 0.1444 DC-10-30 250-380 6357 572 3 CF6-50C2 52500 0.2753 0.1836 767-300 204-290 4650 351 2 CF6-80A 48000 0.2735 0.1368 767-200(ER) 174-290 5942 351 2 CF6-80A 48000 0.2735 0.1368 DC-10-10 250-380 4123 440 3 CF6-6D 40000 0.2727 0.1818 MD-83 155 2618 160 2 JT8D-219 21700 0.2712 0.1356 DC-8-71 259 ? 325 4 CFM56-2C1 22000 0.2708 0.2031 747-200B 366-452 7570 833 4 JT9D-7R4G2 54750 0.2629 0.1972 747-400 412-509 8380 870 4 PW4056 56000 0.2575 0.1931 DC-9-50 135 1260 121 2 JT8D-15 15500 0.2562 0.1281 727-100 94 2530 170 3 JT8D-9 14500 0.2559 0.1706 747-100 500 ? 733 4 JT9D-7 45600 0.2488 0.1866 737-200(A) 120 2840 128.6 2 JT8D-17A 16000 0.2488 0.1244 727-200(A) 145 2240 191.5 3 JT8D-15A 15500 0.2428 0.1619 A340-300 280-440 ? 558.9 4 CFM56-5C2 31200 0.2233 0.1675 A340-200 220-440 ? 558.8 4 CFM56-5C2 31200 0.2233 0.1675 DC-8-61 259 5460 325 4 JT3D-3B 18000 0.2215 0.1662 DC-8-50 116-189 ? 325 4 JT3D-3B 18000 0.2215 0.1662 >And has the extent of overpoweredness been consistent over time? Apparently not -- the 757-200 is a rocket, but the 737-200 Advanced is quite a slug. After Concorde, the top of the list is packet with twins but all of them are fairly new until you get down a fair bit. None of the new twins are amongst those down at the bottom of the list. -- 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 Oct 4 22:52:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: amit@klondike.winternet.com (Amit Bhati) Subject: FAA Performance Regulations question. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:30 For those familiar with FAA regulations on Aircraft and Engine Performance, here is a question. I believe there muct be very specific procedures from the FAA about how and for what an engine (and other parts of the aircraft) has to be tested to keep it in continued operation. Can someone point me to sources of published information on Engine and Aircraft Performance Regulations and Procedures to check for compliance that the FAA has/had formed. Are such technical regulations different for different countries? Where can I get a list of documents that detail these procedures and regulations? Many thanks, amit -- From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ajvdplas@pi.net Subject: Performance Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Planet Internet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:31 Can anybody tell me if there is a difference in jet and turboprop in calculating takeoff-performance. Is the obstructionclearanceheight for a jet (25 ft) the same as for a turboprop, or is this height 50 ft. I fly a turboprop and i read that somewhere, but in our AOM they still use the obstacleheight of 35 ft, so I might be wrong in this. What is a good aviationserver where I can download these kind of things ? From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lindenal@thuban.crd.ge.com (Alexander Linden) Subject: weight calculation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development, Schenectady NY Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:31 In order to model aircraft/engine performance, I am thinking of a new weight calculation scheme for jet airliners. Currently there seem at least three methods in use: A) take number of passengers and multiply this with a factor of 200 pounds accounting for body weight and carry-on luggage. B) take number of passengers and multiply this with a factor of 170 pounds and count the number of carry-on bags and multiply this with 23.4 pounds. Add both numbers together. C) measure the pressure on the hydraulic shock absorbers which increases linear with weight. Do you know other methods? Do you have experience with the accuracy of those methods? I mean, it is really not that important to know exactly the weight in lbs. but an accurate numerical quantification would be great for various thinks, eg. fuel consumption.k regards -- Alexander -- Alexander Linden Information Technology Lab General Electric Corp. R & D Center Schenectady, NY 12309 (518) 387-4050 From kls Wed Oct 4 22:52:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bob_Crownfield Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: City University of New York/University Computer Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:52:32 I think a 727 can climb at 4700 feet per minute, if I remember correctly. From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: MKennon@nando.net (Mike Kennon) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: News & Observer Public Access Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:21 > I can help you out as far as a moderatly loaded Fokker F-28 on a >standard day. ... >Decent, idle power, 320kias: 5000-6000fpm. The decent rate seems very high to me. I am not a commerical pilot, only a flight simiulator pilot, so I may be wrong! mkennon@nando.net From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chris tassio Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: news@shiva.usa.net Organization: HIGH-LIFT WINGS INC. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:21 John, Airliner climb rates after rotation(vr) are dictated by such things as gross wt and second segment obstical clearance requirements. After vr until obs clearance alt(usually 800ft agl) the aircraft is flown at target airspeed of V2 +10-15 depending on aircraft type, giving what ever rate of climb can be maintained at target speed, for existing conditions i.e. gross wt., take off thrust used. This is usually about 2000-3000fpm. Then when the aircraft is clean the target speed of 250kts<10000ft is obtained, then the aircraft will give its best rate for existing conditions at target speed, usually 3000-4000fpm, until reaching 10000ft. At 10000ft the new target airspeed usually 320-350KTS is reached ethen the aircraft will once again climb at its best rate for existing conditions, usually about 3000-4000fpm for this segment.These are mean type values, of course these can vary greatly due to mostly gross wt. differences i.e. a light plane can easily exceed 6000fpm. Hope this helps. chris From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eemaan@aimnet.com (Ethan Schell) Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:22 In article , Ed Bogart wrote: >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. > The 777 has plug doors. As the doors open, they move upwards slightly so the door stops clear the fuselage stops and then move outwards and forwards along the fuselage. Ethan Schell Your life vest is under your seat. From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) Subject: Re: exit door latch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:22 In article , Brad Gillies wrote: >In article , > "Nicolas E. Murat" wrote: >>On 12 Sep 1995, Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > >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. > Not at all harmless, because it is colorless, odorless, and DISPLACES OXYGEN. And while you can tell the presence of CO2 because it makes you feel like you are suffocating, you CANNOT DETECT the absence of oxygen--you just feel drunk and pass out. I think oil tankers use nitrogen to fill the dead space in the tanks (to prevent combustion) and that workers die from time to time by accidentally unknowingly entering nitrogen-filled spaces. It is similar to the danger of Halon fire extinguishers. I don't know if the quantity of nitrogen needed to fill a slide could displace enough cabin air for long enough to be dangerous, but on the face of it, there could potentially be a problem. I wonder if discharging lots of nitrogen into a cabin would trigger the release of the oxygen masks? -- Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@world.std.com From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: Re: Boeing in the WSJ References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIESIN Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:22 Although I did not see the WSJ article on Boeing, several reasons exist for Boeing to make more (in real terms) on the 777 than 747. Initially, inflation estimates (based on current trends) are projected to be substantially lower during the next 5-10 years than when the 747 was launched (late 60s and early 70s). Assuming that we do not have another oil shock, inflation should be reasonable (but you never know now do you!). Another reason for increased profits on the 777 are related to production efficiencies. My guess is that Boeing is more efficient now than during the 747 start-up period (more competition). However, increased efficiency does not always translate into increased profits if competition forces down what you can get for your products...in this case, airplanes. But, the profit margin for an airplane is still quite high due to the high-level of skill involved in its design and production. Therefore, efficiencies introduced as a result of competition can be translated into increased profits. dlt From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Boeing in the WSJ References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:23 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >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. > That depends to some extent depend on how you do the accounting. Boeing came close to sending itself bankrupt whilst getting the 747 into production. Assume that all this money is a loan to the program at the prevailing interest rate. The 747 didn't receive that many orders in its first few years, at least partly due to the early 1970s oil shock. By our accounting, the program's 'debt' grows (in real terms) through that period. Thus the number of aircraft sold after ten years to make the program profitable is much greater than the number that needs to be sold after five years to make the program profitable overall. By this way of measuring, delays and cost overruns have an enormous effect on overall profitability, much more than many people would expect. By this reckoning, it is easy to show the 747 program taking a very long time indeed before becoming profitable. Of course the 747 is a cash cow of staggering proportions for Boeing today but, still, the problems at the start of the 747 program have a big effect on its overall profitability. On the other hand, the 777 has been built on schedule and essentially to budget. Boeing has received lots of orders for aircraft to be delivered in its crucial early years. Therefore, the program becomes profitable much faster, and its 'cash cow' phase lasts much longer. And of course, the aviation market is much bigger today. I feel that competition or no competition, Boeing will ultimately sell many more 777s than the total production run of the 747. Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk Disclaimer: the opinions presented here are mine alone, but they should be yours too because they're right. From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@wis.com (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Engines (Was Re: Boeing in the WSJ) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:23 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : 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. Historically, the late comer or the new engine doesn't do well. For example, the CF6 on the B747-200 (mostly powered by the JT9D), the JT9D on the DC-10 (mostly powered by the CF6), the PW4000 on the A300/310 and the B767 (mostly powered by the CF6), the PW2000 on the B757 (mostly powered by the RB.211), and the V2500 on the A320 (mostly powered by the CFM56). Many of the late comers in the above examples are much better engines, but they fail to capture the majority of their respective market. However, the introduction of PW2000 forced R-R to upgrade their RB.211-535 engine also forced GE (which was going to offer the CF6-32) to drop out of the market. Similarly, the V2500 forced CFMI to upgrade their CFM56-5B. Ironically, when GE introduced the CF6-80C2 for the B767, GE bragged about the advantage of derivative engine over Pratt & Whitney's then brand-new PW4000. Now, it's P&W's turn to claim the same advantage that the PW4000 has over the GE90. With all the problems that the GE90 program is facing, the only bright spot for the GE90 is that the GE90 does have the majority of the B-market B777 share. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Earley <76435.35@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Where did all the air vents go? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NFPA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:23 Another recent problem is that many U. S. Airlines no longer run air conditioning packs on the ground during the summer. This is only intended to save fuel. The airlines are no longer interested in transporting passengers, they are only interested in shipping seats. Mark Earley wa1jep@aol.com -- Mark Earley From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drakeal@aol.com (Drakeal) Subject: Re: Rolls-Royce Pratt & Whitney Merge References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drakeal@aol.com (Drakeal) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:23 I work at Pratt. This rumor has been circulating for the last three years, and is always vehemently denied by top management from both companies...which makes me think there must be some truth to it. The reasons cited for not doing it are: 1) RR is already doing poorly compared to PW & GE, so there is no reason for UTC add another slack performer when it already has PW to carry around; and, 2) Governmental regulations on both sides of the Atlantic tend to restrict the flow of patented technology between the two business units. A counterargument would be that PW would gain significant access to EC markets through association with RR. I tend to doubt a merger. From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drakeal@aol.com (Drakeal) Subject: AWACS Incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drakeal@aol.com (Drakeal) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:24 Anything new on the AWACS incident at Elmendorf AFB? It appears to be a birdstrike incident from what I've heard. Has anyone heard anything to indicate otherwise? From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gtokarski@aol.com (Gtokarski) Subject: 747-400 Range Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: gtokarski@aol.com (Gtokarski) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:24 What would the difference in range be between a normally loaded 747-400 (i.e. typical passengers and fuel) versus one with max fuel and only ~10 passengers? From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: caf@omen.com (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) Subject: Re: EMI levels possible due to airborne military jammers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Omen Technology INC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:24 In article , peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith wrote: >>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 ... Have you considered EMI from TV and FM stations?? Some of these have EIRPs in the megawatt range. Signal combining and weather related lensing effects could create transient hot spots well beyond expected levels. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX caf@omen.COM www.omen.com Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software" Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, GSZ and DSZ TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-621-3746 FTP: ftp.cs.pdx.edu pub/zmodem From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: richard@rmit.edu.au (Richard A. Muirden) Subject: 747-400 without a winglet ! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:24 There is the most interesting picture in Australian Aviation this month of a UA 744 without a winglet on it's port side ! Karl would prob. know - what would be the affect on the aircraft of missing one winglet? I believe I read somewhere that the winglets on the 744 gave a 3% savings on fuel burn. but would it upset the aircraft balance or something only having one? and how could it come off? is it lying in the pacific somewhere, or dropped off over someone's farm? Just wondering. -richard -- Richard A. Muirden, Sys. Admin |Fan of Shostakovich, "Star Trek" and BOEING! Mailto: richard@rmit.EDU.AU |Fly the Friendly Skies of United Airlines ! Phone: (+61 3) 9660 3814 |I created alt.fan.shostakovich! Fly: UA,AN,WN http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard |Can *YOU* beat my 117 Shost CD's? :-) Jolt Cola Can Wall Counter: 74 cans * 1995: Remembering 20 years since the death of Shostakovich (1906-75) * From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: francism@cs.man.ac.uk (Max Francis) Subject: EFIS colours Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:24 I have posted this article before but received no reply... Do any of you pilots, engineers, designers etc. know the specification of the colours used on EFIS CRT displays? Expressed as 24bit RGB values would be lovely. Come on, _someone_ must know! Thanks Max Francis mcf@cs.man.ac.uk From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dpw@dircon.co.uk (Daniel Wilder) Subject: Re: Navigation Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: dpw@dircon.co.uk Organization: The Direct Connection (Call 0181 297 2200 for info) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:25 On 22 Sep 95 00:18:33 , jwilson@ott.hookup.net (Joe M Wilson) wrote: > 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. > What sort of information are you looking for? The principles of operation of a strapped down laser gryo IRS or how the IRS interfaces to the FMS? Regards, Daniel. --- Daniel Wilder Fax: +44-181-455-3761 dpw@dircon.co.uk From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: 100071.3113@compuserve.com (Francois Archer) Subject: Re: Navigation Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe Incorporated Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:25 jwilson@ott.hookup.net (Joe M Wilson) wrote: > 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. As far as i am able to understand and to translate my (french) meanings about the question, i could say that : -the device is continuously referring to ground nav aids (vor,ndb) which he meets along the trip then compares the position given through inertial systems with the previous preselected way he is tracking and transmitt in real time each needed correction signal to the autopilot. So, it is not a real inertial, pure, system. Here is what i understood a few week ago when asking the same question to the captain of a French Air Inter A320 who invites me in the flight desk. (Very nice flight from Nice to Strasbourg with a 360° round the Mont Blanc at FL 180 ! ) Hope this helps F.A. living in Mulhouse (France) From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Navigation Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:25 jwilson@ott.hookup.net (Joe M Wilson) wrote: >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. While this answer isn't for the A320 exactly, the basics of most glass airplanes is the same. The inertials are not really the navigator, they are sensors. The A320/330/340 737/3--+/757/767/747-400 MD11 and such all use a multisensor area navigation system. The IRSs are used as an input along with radios (VOR/DME/LOC) and possibly GPS. The area nav system is generally a FMS but can sometimes be an INS. For the 747-400, there are three Inertial sensors and the FMS "mixes" them into a common position. This is the basic position solution for navigation. If there are other input sensors available, they are used to compute a correction factor to the inertial position. In the case of radio, the radio position is used to put a correction bias into the triple mix position. In the case of GPS, if the sensors have a good solution, then the GPS solution is used. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: mikecmb3@ix.netcom.com (C. Michael Barnett ) Subject: formula for great circle computation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:25 Greetings fellow aeronauts... I wonder if anyone can provide me with the formulae to calculate great circle course and distance given the latitude and longitude of the departure point and destination. I'm writing a corporate flight scheduling program in Microsoft Access (ie visual basic), and need to figure leg distances and directions. TIA C. Michael Barnett mikecmb3@ix.netcom.com Captain DiamondJet N4LK From kls Wed Oct 4 22:57:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: formula for great circle computation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Oct 95 22:57:26 >I wonder if anyone can provide me with the formulae to calculate great >circle course and distance given the latitude and longitude of the >departure point and destination. Distance itself is pretty easy. Given latitude and longitude in radians, compute the angle (theta) between the initial and destination longitudes and normalize it to the range -PI .. PI. The distance as an angle is then acos( sin(lat1) * sin(lat2) + cos(lat1) * cos(lat2) * cos(theta) ) Multiply that by the radius of the earth (i.e., 6371.2 kilometers) to get a reasonable approximation of the great circle distance. Plotting the course is considerably more work. You might want to look at the 'geod' program included with the PROJ.4 mapping program, which can be picked up via anonymous ftp from charon.er.usgs.gov. -- 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 Oct 5 13:25:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Garnet Kolesar Subject: Re: Question: Cabin environment on long haul flights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Whidbey Internet Express Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 95 13:25:57 > I don't know about MD-11 but turning off a pack will use less fuel > and thereby increase range. It does affect the air quality. As to putting the passengers to sleep by raing the cabin alt. Not likely. It is more likely the characteristic of Douglas design. Nest time try a Boeing product. From kls Thu Oct 5 13:25:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: Re: 747-400 without a winglet ! 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: 05 Oct 95 13:25:58 In article richard@rmit.edu.au "Richard A. Muirden" writes: > Karl would prob. know - what would be the affect on the aircraft of > missing one winglet? I believe I read somewhere that the winglets on > the 744 gave a 3% savings on fuel burn. but would it upset the aircraft > balance or something only having one? and how could it come off? is > it lying in the pacific somewhere, or dropped off over someone's farm? FWIW I have seen a photo of a Lufthansa 744 which flew a sched. pax flight (I think from LAX to FRA or vice versa) minus one winglet because of some damage which was deemed irrelevant enough to proceed rather than cancel the flight. -- Niels From kls Thu Oct 5 13:25:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: 747-400 without a winglet ! 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: 05 Oct 95 13:25:58 >but would it upset the aircraft >balance or something only having one? and how could it come off? is >it lying in the pacific somewhere, or dropped off over someone's farm? It may have been removed because it was damaged, maybe a bird strike. You would be amazed at the parts (fairings, access doors, flap sections) that can be removed from an airplane and have it still be legal to fly. You can pretty much count on a performance penalty (decreased takeoff weight, speed restrictions, things like that) associated with that part being gone though. I've never looked at the MMELs that are available at various sites to see if they include the Configuration Deviation List. This is a list of parts that can be removed from the airplane and not prohibit further flight. Anyone know if the CDL is included in the MMEL? Dave From kls Thu Oct 5 13:25:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-400 without a winglet ! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 95 13:25:58 >You would be amazed at the parts (fairings, access doors, flap sections) >that can be removed from an airplane and have it still be legal to fly. Yep. Earlier this year I was on a United 737-300 from SFO to SAN and poked my head up front while we were boarding. I was quite surprised to see a placard noting asymmetric thrust -- 22,000 lbs on #1 and only 20,000 lbs on #2. United has a mix of engines (CFM56-3B1 and -3B2) on their 737-300 fleet, but I never expected they would mix them on the same aircraft! It worked fine, though, and the pilots didn't think it was a big deal. -- 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 Oct 5 13:25:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: acvitale@magg.net (acvitale) Subject: Re: Emergency exits capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: magg.Net Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 95 13:25:59 >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). I was surprised to find recently when flying Aloha that their 737 aircraft are equiped with no slide on the rear left exit but rather a folding set of airstairs. These airstairs would likely be inoperable and unable to extend and give access to the exit in the event of a gear collapse or power failure... Albert Vitale From kls Thu Oct 5 13:25:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@wis.com (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Rolls-Royce Pratt & Whitney Merge References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 95 13:25:59 Drakeal (drakeal@aol.com) wrote: : I work at Pratt. This rumor has been circulating for the last three : years, and is always vehemently denied by top management from both : companies...which makes me think there must be some truth to it. IMHO, Pratt is more interested in the merger than R-R, though, Pratt will not openly admit it. Pratt CEO had stated many times that there would eventually be two players only, and Pratt would be here to stay. R-R is fighting to stay in the business, acquiring Allison is a perfect example. : The : reasons cited for not doing it are: 1) RR is already doing poorly compared : to PW & GE, so there is no reason for UTC add another slack performer when : it already has PW to carry around; and, R-R's RB211-524 and Trent may not do as well as the PW4000 or the CF-6, but the few customers that use the -524/Trent are extremely healthy airlines (for example, Cathay Pacific and British Airways). The RB211-535 has 75-80% of all the B757 customers and between 55%-60% of all the installed engines on the B757. Furthermore, R-R has a much more mature marketing than Pratt in the industrial applications of their turbo fan engines (which account for a significant amount of R-R's business). In the past few years, I believe R-R's profits are comparable to Pratt's. Furthermore, France's SNECMA has terrible financial results, but it does not stop GE from doing business with SNECMA (and CFMI is very successful). : 2) Governmental regulations on : both sides of the Atlantic tend to restrict the flow of patented : technology between the two business units. If R-R can buy Allison, there is no reason why P&W cannot establish a joint venture with R-R (or buy R-R) and work around all the touchy issues. After all, P&W and R-R have already been working together on the V2500 for many years. : A counterargument would be : that PW would gain significant access to EC markets through association : with RR. I tend to doubt a merger. I tend to doubt a merger, too. However, if Daimler-Benz does sell MTU to BMW, I think Pratt will need a new European partner. R-R *IS* the only sensible choice (much more so than BMW)! -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Thu Oct 5 13:26:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: meb4593@ungoliant.ca.boeing.com Subject: re: 777 to ANA - When?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 95 13:26:00 I heard there was a ceremony last night at the Museum of Flight. There is no doubt what kind of airplane this is. ANA has a big 777 on the tail! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bain (206) 294-0913 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Cabin Systems - IFE meb4593@ungoliant.ca.boeing.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Oct 5 13:26:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Aviation Fuel 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: 05 Oct 95 13:26:00 >For some research I am doing I am looking for the price of Aviation Fuel. I believe Jet A is going for about 70 cents/gal. I'm sure there is a fuel purchaser out there that can verify that. >I am also looking for the fuel usage of a medium size aero-engine for say >a 737 or an A320/340 per hour. Where can I get this kind of information? A JT8D burns about 1,000pph at idle and about 3,000pph at cruise. Don't have any SFC numbers - those books are in storage for another month or so. Dave From kls Thu Oct 5 13:26:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Aviation Fuel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 95 13:26:01 >A JT8D burns about 1,000pph at idle and about 3,000pph at cruise. Don't >have any SFC numbers - those books are in storage for another month or so. Here are a few SFCs (at max power) with typical applications: JT8D-9 0.60 727, 737, DC-9 JT8D-15 0.63 727 Advanced, 737 Advanced, DC-9 JT8D-17 0.65 727 Advanced, 737 Advanced, DC-9-30/50 JT8D-217 0.53 MD-82 JT8D-219 0.528 MD-83 PW2037 0.33 757, C-17 PW2040 0.563 757PF PW4056 0.319 767 PW4060 0.330 747-400 PW4156 0.318 A300-600 PW4460 0.330 MD-11 CF6-50C 0.390 DC-10-30, A300 CF6-80C2A3 0.329 A300-600, MD-11 CF6-80C2B1F 0.316 747-400 Tay 620 0.44 F100 CFM56-2C1 0.36 DC-80-71/72/73 CFM56-3B1 0.38 737-300/500 CFM56-3C1 0.39 737-400 CFM56-5A2 0.32 A320 CFM56-5C2 0.33 A340 Now, how'd you like to give us a tutorial on just what SFC means? -- 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 Oct 5 13:26:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: light switches 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: 05 Oct 95 13:26:01 >A quick question about the reading light switches over the passenger >seats in the Boeing 737. These switches feel like momentary-contact >pushbutton switches, which would normally not toggle a lamp on and off >like they do. These switches 'toggle' mechanically, not electrically. Something like the mechanism that makes the cartridge of a ball point pen go in and out. Now on an airplane with passenger entertainment, like a 767, pressing the button does send electrons on a journey. Pressing the button on the armrest sends a signal to a Seat Electronics Box located under the seat group. From there the signal will go to a central decoder which then sends a 'reading light on' signal to a decoder box above the seat where the button was originally pressed. This box then turns on the reading light. button on armrest controller->seat electronics box->central decoder->overhead decoder->reading light. What could be easier? ;-) Dave From kls Thu Oct 5 13:26:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jon Ward Subject: Re: formula for great circle computation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk Organization: The End at Infinity Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 95 13:26:02 This question reminds me of a classic mathematics/physics problem, which I believe is worth considering : Assume that the earth is a perfect sphere. I lay a rope around a great circle of the globe. I then lay a second rope around the same great circle, but the second rope is ten metres above the ground all the way around. How much longer is the second rope? Once you have the answer, consider the fact that the last trans-Atlantic flight I flew on cruised at 37,000 ft above sea-level. Jon Ward -------- Work : JRW@liyorkrd.li.co.uk | #include "disk$standard:disclaimer.h" Rest : Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk | "You look up to God, and find Venus Di Play : Nyar@blibble.demon.co.uk | Milo" My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult From kls Thu Oct 5 13:26:02 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: 05 Oct 95 13:26:02 chris tassio (hlwings@usa.net) wrote: : Ken, : I fly the A300-600R the MTOW for our ops is 378,530 lbs and our : MLW is 308,650 with no fuel dump. The aircraft is certified to : land at the MTOW, however any land ing over the MLW requires a : log entry and maint. action in the form of an over-weight : landing check prior to next flight. Hope this is helpful. : chris I checked the FARs and there appears to be no requirement to have fuel dump capability except if it is necessary to maintain climb rate if some power is lost. [At least, I think that is what they say]. Its interesting to note that the MLW is in fact the Max 'normal' Landing Weight and that 'over-weight' landings are allowed , albeit with the necessary maintenance checks etc afterwards. On a slightly different topic, does anyone know of a reasonably priced publication that gives commercial aircraft specs including typical take-off and landing runs, Vne, fuel burn rates etc? Flight International publishes such summaries on an annual basis but I often seem to miss them and even when I do get them the tables seem to have significant errors. Ken Lewis From kls Thu Oct 5 13:26:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu (Richard N. Rea) Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Brigham Young University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Oct 95 13:26:03 In article simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) writes: >> 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. >The 767 came out initially without fuel dump capability. Half of our >767-300ERs at Qantas also don't have them - Boeing decided it wasn't >necessary and then changed their minds. For an emergency landing, is it ever desireable to dump excess fuel to reduce the possibility or extent of a fire? Would it make a difference or is fuel dumping only for reducing the landing weight? From news Thu Oct 5 03:01:40 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s Date: 5 Oct 1995 02:13:25 -0700 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4507jm$oqr@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> In article , Justin Talbot-Stern 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. > >I had the opportunity to work in Ansett's Engineering department during my >summer holidays and spent a lot of time in their 767-200 cockpits performing >CRT diagnostic tests and FMS data uploads. > >As for Ansett being the only airline in the world to operate three crew 767, I >think this is wrong. Last January, Ansett took delivery of an additional >used 767-200 from Britannia Airways and I think it was a three crew aircraft >as well. However, the 767's they're thinking of acquiring over the next few >years have the standard two-pilot cockpits. The report I saw said that Ansett had one "odd" 767 which they received from Monarch (not Britannia) and that this 767 was a two-pilot crew aircraft. Also, there's no way that Britannia would ever have ordered the 767 with a flight-engineer station. Britannia is a very lean British charter operation, and I can't ever imagine them making such a blunder. RNA From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Michael Page Subject: Re: formula for great circle computation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Mathematics, Monash University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:20 Jon Ward wrote: >This question reminds me of a classic mathematics/physics problem, which >I believe is worth considering : > >I lay a rope around a great circle of the globe. I then lay a second rope >around the same great circle, but the second rope is ten metres above the >ground all the way around. > >How much longer is the second rope? 2*pi*(r+10m) - 2*pi*r = 2*pi*10m \approx 62.8m >Once you have the answer, consider the fact that the last trans-Atlantic >flight I flew on cruised at 37,000 ft above sea-level. That's less than ten extra miles compared to the distance if the earth was flat. A minute amount compared to that travelled. So? Michael From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Alexandre GRIES Subject: Re: formula for great circle computation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pressimage, France Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:21 Dear Captain Barnett, As I understood you're looking for the formulae to calculate great circle course and distance while having departure and destination coordinates. We, in France, call it "orthodromie" computation. The formulae following are giving the distance and the departure azimuth for the great circle ride. Definitions: A is the departure point B is the destination point M is the distance LA is the departure latitude LB is the destination latitude GA is the departure longitude GB is the destination longitude P is the longitude difference ZA is the departure azimuth 1. Distance computation. Cos M = Sin(LA).SIN(LB) + Cos(LA).Cos(LB).Cos(P) Cos M = a + b a has a negative value when latitudes have a different sign b has a negative value when P>90° if a+b is positive M<90° if a+b is negative M>90° Use the acos function. M is given in degree and minute of arc. It has to be converted in nautical miles. 2. Departure azimuth. The azimuth is the the angle between the local meridian and the great circle computed. The two formulae are efficient: Sin(ZA) = (Cos(LB).Sin(P))/Sin(M) Cotg(ZA) = (((Tg(LB).Cos(LA))/Sin(P)) - Sin(LA).Cotg(P) Cotg(ZA) = a - b a has the LB sign. b is positive when Sin(LA) and Cotg(P) have the same sign. use the asin or acotg functions. 3. Example. LA = 33.00 S GA = 91.55 W LB = 14.30 N GB = 100.39 E Distance computation. P = 167.26 Cos(M) = 0.92887 a is negative, b is negative, a+b is negative => M>90° M = -21°44 = 180 - 21.44 = 158°16 = 9496 Nm Departure azimuth. Sin(ZA) = 0.56888 ZA = 34.40 = 180 + 34.40 = 214.40 (215°) Cotg(ZA) = 1.44640 ZA = 214.40 (215°) The destination azimuth can be found by replacing LA by LB in the formula. I hope that these few elements will be interesting for your demand. Sorry for my "french pilot" way of speeking english (I am an Airbus 320 Air France pilot, ATR 42/72 Captain and French ATPL instructor) Alexandre GRIES - agries@planete.net - Tel/Fax 33 (1) 42 57 15 80 38 Avenue JUNOt - F75018 PARIS - FRANCE From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Garnet ,K" Subject: Re: formula for great circle computation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Whidbey Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:21 This is somewhat tricky in that one must be careful of the brackets. Here goes. D=60*arccos((sin lat1 x sin lat2)+(cos lat1 x cos lat2)x cos(long2-long1)) Initial Heading=Arccos(sin lat2-sin lat1 x cos(D/60) / sin (D/60) x cos lat1) where D=distance from above calculation. If you use Excell I can e-mail you a spreadsheet which does this chore. Garnet.K email= gk@widbey.com From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: scf@w0x0f.com (Steve Fenwick) Subject: Re: formula for great circle computation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Best Internet Communications Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:22 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >I wonder if anyone can provide me with the formulae to calculate great > >circle course and distance given the latitude and longitude of the > >departure point and destination. > > Distance itself is pretty easy. Given latitude and longitude in > radians, compute the angle (theta) between the initial and destination > longitudes and normalize it to the range -PI .. PI. The distance as > an angle is then > > acos( sin(lat1) * sin(lat2) + cos(lat1) * cos(lat2) * cos(theta) ) > > Multiply that by the radius of the earth (i.e., 6371.2 kilometers) to > get a reasonable approximation of the great circle distance. Another formula, slightly more accurate for short distances, but also more complicated, is: 2*asin( sqrt( (sin( (lat2-lat1)/2) )^2 + cos(lat2) * cos(lat1) * (sin( (lon2-lon1)/2) )^2 ) ) Course along a great circle varies constantly, of course, except along lines of longitude, but the departure direction from any point to any other is also relatively easy: atan( cos(lat2) * sin(lon2-lon1) / ( ( cos(lat1) * sin(lat2) ) - ( sin(lat1) * cos(lat2) * cos(lon2-lon1) ) ) ) Note that you need to use an arctan function equivalent to FORTRAN's ATAN2 for the atan in the second equation, or you need to handle the case of the numerator and/or denominator going to 0. One way to plot this is to use the forward and inverse course equations to plot a series of very short rhumb lines by calculating intermediate lat/lons based on the starting point of the rhumb line and an arbitrarily short distance (short relative to map scale.) Iterate until done. Again, this is all for Earth as a sphere. Caveat lector for flight planning based on these estimates (flattening is about 1/300.) (Taken from "Map Projections--A Working Manual", U.S.G.S., p.30.) Does the FMS in your DiamondJet fly great circles directly, or do you break it into a series of rhumb lines for it? Steve -- Steve Fenwick scf@w0x0f.com http://www.w0x0f.com From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: etech@deltanet.com Subject: Re: formula for great circle computation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: etech@deltanet.com Organization: Delta Internet Services, Anaheim, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:22 In , mikecmb3@ix.netcom.com (C. Michael Barnett ) writes: >I wonder if anyone can provide me with the formulae to calculate great >circle course and distance given the latitude and longitude of the >departure point and destination. I'm writing a corporate flight >scheduling program in Microsoft Access (ie visual basic), and need to >figure leg distances and directions. I had the same question a few years ago when I was working for an outfit called SystemOne (at the time, the data processing and information services arm of Texas Air). I talked to one of the programmers on on our "Phoenix" flight planning system and was surprised to find that the Phoenix system used an algorithm that took into account the fact that the Earth is oblate rather than spherical. I never followed-up with this information, but I wonder how much difference is involved between the two algorithms. For a short route, say LAX - SFO, I doubt there's a significant difference. But from LAX to Sydney? At that distance, could the difference between a spherical great-circle route and an oblate route be measured in kilometers? -- etech@deltanet.com Eric Chevalier Compu$erve: 76010,2463 etech@netcom.com --------------------- Prodigy: GCXJ11A http://www.deltanet.com/users/etech From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: formula for great circle computation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:22 >I talked to one of the programmers on on our "Phoenix" flight >planning system and was surprised to find that the Phoenix system >used an algorithm that took into account the fact that the Earth is >oblate rather than spherical. The software in the PROJ.4 package I mentioned takes this into account as well, with not just one model for Earth's real shape but an amazing 41 different choices, at least in the version I have. -- 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 Oct 13 01:30:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: GeorgeSchraw@medio.net (George Schraw) Subject: Re: 777 to ANA - When?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:22 In article , walter@zaiko.kyushu-u.ac.jp (Dr. Walter Pietsch) wrote: > I would like to know when Boeing delivers the 777 to ANA. As far as I know ANA > was the second airline with a firm order on the 777. > > Thanks in advance! > W.Pietsch ANA took delivery of their first 777 October 5th. A local Seattle paper reported passenger service is scheduled to begin December 23rd with a Tokyo to Osaka flight. George Schraw From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: 747-400 Range 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: 13 Oct 95 01:30:22 Well, I don't know the exact answer (although I probably should), but I know that Capt. David Massy-Green of QANTAS airlines flew a 747-400 non-stop from London to Sydney. He landed with min fuel and told me that his payload was a hocky puck. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@Walden.MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: 747-400 Range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:23 Gtokarski (gtokarski@aol.com) wrote: : What would the difference in range be between a normally loaded 747-400 : (i.e. typical passengers and fuel) versus one with max fuel and only ~10 : passengers? Qantas flew their 747-400 "Longreach", on a delivery flight, from LHR to SYD non-stop, with maximum fuel. They used a special high density fuel, and were towed to the runway, but landed in Australia with a couple hours fuel remaining. Steven From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@Walden.MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: 747-400 without a winglet ! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:23 : Karl would prob. know - what would be the affect on the aircraft of : missing one winglet? I believe I read somewhere that the winglets on : the 744 gave a 3% savings on fuel burn. but would it upset the aircraft : balance or something only having one? and how could it come off? is : it lying in the pacific somewhere, or dropped off over someone's farm? A missing winglet probably wouldn't have as much effect as carrying a spare engine on the port wing. I read that JAL's 747-400's used on short domestic sectors, have the winglets removed to save weight. When the cycles get to a certain point, the aircraft is transferred to long haul routes, and the winglets are re-installed to save fuel. Steven From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Nicolas E. Murat" Subject: Re: 747-400 without a winglet ! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:23 On 4 Oct 1995, Richard A. Muirden wrote: > There is the most interesting picture in Australian Aviation this month > of a UA 744 without a winglet on it's port side ! > > Karl would prob. know - what would be the affect on the aircraft of > missing one winglet? I believe I read somewhere that the winglets on > the 744 gave a 3% savings on fuel burn. but would it upset the aircraft > balance or something only having one? and how could it come off? is > it lying in the pacific somewhere, or dropped off over someone's farm? The 6 foot winglets are added at the end of the assembly process are indeed designed to reduce the vortex at the wing tips in order to save fuel. Some of the Japanese Airlines who operate the 747-400 for their short-haul domestic market have opted not to use them for those high frequency flights. So 744's do exist without them. Now, UAL A/C with only one winglet does sound unlikely. If they did lose it somewhere, the balance would have only been affected temporarily, until adjustments were made. Earlier 747s lost whole engines and mananged. So a winglet can't be that bad. Several manufacturers have had problems with losing components such as Landing Gear Doors, Service Panels and Exterior Escape Slides in flight... From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: snowd@coral.indstate.edu Subject: Re: 747-400 without a winglet ! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:23 In article tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) writes: >It may have been removed because it was damaged, maybe a bird strike. ... >I've never looked at the MMELs that are available at various sites to see >if they include the Configuration Deviation List. This is a list of parts >that can be removed from the airplane and not prohibit further flight. >Anyone know if the CDL is included in the MMEL? The CDL is normally considered an appendix to the FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual. I remember reading in a copy of Boeing Airliner magazine a few years back that the B747-400 can fly with one winglet removed, say for damage. The fuel burn increment is about 3%, again, from what I remember reading a few years back. Doug From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:24 In article rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu (Richard N. Rea) writes: >For an emergency landing, is it ever desireable to dump excess fuel to reduce >the possibility or extent of a fire? Would it make a difference or is fuel >dumping only for reducing the landing weight? There are two schools of thought. One is that an airplane full of fuel is full of combustible material, which can catch fire. The other is that an airplane which has no fuel is full of fuel vapors, which can explode. These days, the general preference is to go with the vapors. -- 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 Oct 13 01:30:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@mo.net (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:24 >For an emergency landing, is it ever desireable to dump excess fuel to reduce >the possibility or extent of a fire? Would it make a difference or is fuel >dumping only for reducing the landing weight? The only reason to dump fuel, is to acheive a weight at or below the max landing weight. Does anyone recall the details of a United DC-8 that was dumping fuel for an emergency landing in the northwest many years ago? I seem to recall they dumped too much fuel, and the engines flamed out on final, causing them to crash into homes along the flight path. Steven From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:24 >Does anyone recall the details of a United DC-8 that was dumping fuel >for an emergency landing in the northwest many years ago? I seem to >recall they dumped too much fuel, and the engines flamed out on final, >causing them to crash into homes along the flight path. That sounds like a United DC-8-61 (N8082U) which crashed in Portland, Oregon, on December 28, 1978. However, it was neither dumping fuel nor making an emergency landing nor on final. There was a problem with a landing gear indicator and they circled for several hours, trying to solve the problem, until they simply ran out of fuel. The flight engineer apparently saw it coming but the captain was fairly difficult to get along with and there were communications problems amongst the crew. This led to United's Cockpit Resource Management program. Further details are in the archives of the newsgroup. (Archives of sci.aeronautics.airliners are available for anonymous ftp on ftp.chicago.com (in /chicago/airliners) and on ftp.kei.com. WWW access is available at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html including both the raw archives and a searchable index.) -- 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 Oct 13 01:30:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: polo@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU (Tomasz Natkanski) Subject: Re: light switches References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Arizona SEDS Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:24 : Now on an airplane with passenger entertainment, like a 767, pressing the : button does send electrons on a journey. Pressing the button on the : armrest sends a signal to a Seat Electronics Box located under the seat : group. From there the signal will go to a central decoder which then sends : a 'reading light on' signal to a decoder box above the seat where the : button was originally pressed. This box then turns on the reading light. : button on armrest controller->seat electronics box->central : decoder->overhead decoder->reading light. What could be easier? ;-) Is this why there is a such time delay between the actual push of the button and the light turning on or off? It is always entertaining to watch some people toggle the switch on and off, and then since nothing happens, they start pushing everything else on the armrest panel. Even longer time delay (which is really annoying) is the lcd screen on SouthWest. It deactivates when one replaces the phone/remote control/keyboard/whatever-you-call-it thing ;). But this time it takes really some time. (I haven't measured it, but 30 seconds would be my guess, maybe even more). And again it is interesting to see people trying to switch it off. BTW, I find the glare of the screen really annoying. I do wonder however if the time delay in the screen is for only one purpose: to force the passengers to watch some ads that are being displayed. Regards, *===========================+ University of Arizona +======================* | Tomasz Natkanski | Aerospace Eng. | "Wish you were here" | | polo@seds.lpl.arizona.edu | -----&------ | - pINK fLOYD | *===========================+ S E D S +======================* From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu (Richard N. Rea) Subject: Re: light switches References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Brigham Young University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:25 In article tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) writes: >>A quick question about the reading light switches over the passenger >>seats in the Boeing 737. These switches feel like momentary-contact >>pushbutton switches, which would normally not toggle a lamp on and off >>like they do. I don't see any advantage to using a "smart" power system for something like the reading lights; The power line is already going to the lights and since the switch is right by the light itself, there is very little extra wiring to connect it directly. This is quite different from the cockpit, where everything that needs to be controlled is for the most part a long ways away... Richard From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: loeffel@iis.ee.ethz.ch (Frank Loeffel) Subject: A310, low visibility landing in Zurich, Switzerland Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:25 Hi, My parents flew from Cyprus to Zurich-Kloten, Switzerland, in a Cyprus Airlines Airbus A310. In Kloten, the weather was foggy with only a few patches of ground visible from the air. Well, my parents told me about a few things that the captain did: - The captain announced that he wouldn't anticipate a problem due to the low visibility. My parents thought that this was a rather strange announcment. - The captain announced that he would fly a 360 degree circle to check things out. Perhaps my parents misinterpreted something and the circle was just mandated by air traffic control for spacing. They asked me, a single engine land pilot, what whas going on on that flight but I didn't have a clue. So the questions: - Can airliners land at Zurich-Kloten in zero visibility? What is the equipment at an airport required for zero visibility landings called? - Can an A310 land in zero visibility? What is the equipment in an airliner required for zero visibility landings called? - Can an A310 do "automatic" (autopilot until touch down) landings? What is an autopilot that allows "automatic" landings called? Can modern airliners generally do "automatic" landings? If visibility is zero or nearly zero, which style of landing would the captain generally prefer? I'm sure some of these are frequently asked questions, but I've lurked around for a while and have never seen a FAQ file posted.. Thanks for all comments! Frank Loeffel loeffel@err.ethz.ch From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@wis.com (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Singapore Airlines A310 replacement Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:25 If you have followed my postings, you should know that I'm very obsessed with the A330/340 vs. B777 competition. Here is some news concerning Singapore Airlines' order: According to Singapore's newspaper (Strait Times), Boeing felt that it had an even chance against Airbus in the race to win Singapore Airlines' $5 billion order of 33 twins. Also, it was reported in Flight International that SIA was asking for a new bidding because the new order had been revised to include B777-300-sized aircraft (which Airbus does not have) as a part of the regional aircraft replacement. However, SIA is not interested in the A-market B777 because of its possible low resale value. Thus, if SIA is going to order the B777, it will be a mixture of the B-market -200 and the -300 (and the B-market aircraft will be "misused"). Personally, I think B777-300 will be a big hit in Asia. It'll be foolish for SIA to overlook the B777. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: AC CRJ:modeller needs help References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:26 In article , "Niels M. Sampath" wrote: >Has anyone closely observed an Air Canada RJ recently? >I am trying to finish a scale model of one but cannot determine >whether the wing and/or horizontal stab. surfaces are painted >white or whther they (aprt from the leading edge) are a variation >of the usual silver/grey. If anyone can positively answer this question >for me I'd be very grateful. I know that Air Canada has Web pages >illustrating the aircraft but I suspect its a retouched photo >based on a Canadair prototype so its accuracy is in question. The wings are the usual silver grey as is the Stab with highly polished leading edges. The winglets are green. I see them every day. brad From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:26 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: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:26 In article , dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) wrote: >Not at all harmless, because it is colorless, odorless, and DISPLACES >OXYGEN. And while you can tell the presence of CO2 because it makes >you feel like you are suffocating, you CANNOT DETECT the absence of >oxygen--you just feel drunk and pass out. I think oil tankers use >nitrogen to fill the dead space in the tanks (to prevent combustion) and >that workers die from time to time by accidentally unknowingly entering >nitrogen-filled spaces. It is similar to the danger of Halon fire >extinguishers. I don't know if the quantity of nitrogen needed to fill >a slide could displace enough cabin air for long enough to be dangerous, >but on the face of it, there could potentially be a problem. for one thing there is not enpugh nitrogen in the bottles to displace the entire volume in the cabin. besides nitrogen mixes freely with oxygen hence AIR. the second the cabin of an airliner, contrary to popular belief, is NOT airtight and must have a constant input of af air from atmosphere. this eliminates the problem altogether. The main reason for using nitrogen is that it is a harmless inert gas. >I wonder if discharging lots of nitrogen into a cabin would trigger the >release of the oxygen masks? no it wouldn't the masks are deployed by a pressure switch only. if the cabin altitude climbs above a certain point (14000 feet) the masks deploy. From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@Walden.MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: Twinjet single-engine performance question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:26 : Apparently not -- the 757-200 is a rocket, but the 737-200 Advanced is : quite a slug. After Concorde, the top of the list is packet with twins : but all of them are fairly new until you get down a fair bit. None of : the new twins are amongst those down at the bottom of the list. I was in the jumpseat of an empty ATR 72, and we simulated an engine failure prior to rotation. The performance was certainly adequate, but with a full load of passengers and some weather, it might prove interesting. I can't speak about the 757-200 on one engine, but I was in the jumpseat when the crew did a maximum performance takeoff because of a small tailwind component. The aircraft had only 98 passengers, and climbed initially at 4800 ft/min. It sure impressed me. Steven From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gallope@admin.curtin.edu.au Subject: Re: Cross Winds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Curtin University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:26 philipp@westnet.com (Ralf Philipp) wrote: >>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. Don't forget that just because they departed doesn't mean that they landed. The pilots may have known the weather reports were excessive, but departed carrying extra fuel for an alternate. They would then be able to have a closer look and get a more up to date report on the winds when they arrived. If the crosswinds are still excessive, they divert. to the alternate. (It's an expensive exercise so departing under these circumstances involves a risk of extra cost, but often the winds aren't that bad when you are on the spot) TG From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chris tassio Subject: Re: Taking off into Wind Shear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: news@shiva.usa.net Organization: HIGH-LIFT WINGS INC. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:27 Morris B. wrote: >Last friday evening at about 640 pm on approach to DIA i was listening to UA's >Channel 9. I heard a 727 pilot report a loss of 25 kts on climbout off of >runway 8. > >The controler verified the low level wind shear and added that a microburst was >building up. The crew of the plane to take off on runway 8 seemed to have >every intention of flying through the windshear and possible microburst. > >The person sitting next to me and i were commenting on the stupidity of this >person. What do you all think? Morris, You have left out one critical point, i.e. what was the alt of the aircraft reporting the 25kt loss on climb out? if it was above 1000ft agl this was not as stupid as it sounded. Once again it is hard to judge without All of th facts. regards- chris(Capt-A300-600r) From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: orourke@starlink.com (Ken O'Rourke) Subject: Re: Taking off into Wind Shear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Star Link Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:27 Morris B. wrote: >Last friday evening at about 640 pm on approach to DIA i was listening to UA's >Channel 9. I heard a 727 pilot report a loss of 25 kts on climbout off of >runway 8. >The controler verified the low level wind shear and added that a microburst was >building up. The crew of the plane to take off on runway 8 seemed to have >every intention of flying through the windshear and possible microburst. >The person sitting next to me and i were commenting on the stupidity of this >person. What do you all think? I agree with your assessment. The very best way to survive a windshear is to avoid it in the first place. System requirements for decreasing windshear escape guidance do not presume they are always survivable. At a minimum it says something like you should be flying at stick shaker at ground impact. I would prefer encountering a windshear on takeoff over approach any day. Flying speed on pitch with the engines at takeoff thrust is preferable to getting nailed by a tailwind or downdraft on approach when the throttles are back and you are already following a decent path. From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu (Peter Hollingsworth) Subject: Re: What's wrong with the MD-11? References: <446mh7$bcp@kragar.kei.com> <449dks$euo@kragar.kei.com> <44ckse$4nr@kragar.kei.com> <44f0oj$nd4@kragar.kei.com> <44fq6u$1lf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:27 In article , Addison Schonland wrote: > As regards the MD11s range problem...I heard from someone at MD that the > problem was a "5%" problem of which fuel burn was 3% and drag was 2%. > Both have been fixed and the plane now does well. SR loves their > airplanes as they were involved with the design. Talk about range > problems...check on the range problems the 747-400s have between the US > west coast and Hong Kong in winter. Or between Hong Kong and London. > Virgin's A340 stops in Helsinki sometimes to refuel while BA refuels its > 400s at Copenhagen. Headwinds are a problem for all three long range > airplanes. Also in regaurds to range, every ten or so years a few companies, Boeing being one of them , I believe, relases new "still air ranges" over routes, based on the prevailing winds in the in the past decade. Well one of these was release shortly before or after the MD-11 entered srvice. Well the distance from the US west coast to HOng Kong grew by over 300 miles, this hurt almost all long range airliners that were already past the design phase. From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@Walden.MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:27 Robert Ashcroft (rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU) 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. I believe that early Air France 737's had flight engineer positions, also because of union pressure. Remember when the second generation wide body twins were being developed, and the dabates were raging on how unsafe air travel would be without flight engineers? I have spent many hours observing from the cockpit jumpseats, and I have always felt that two crewmembers seem more co-ordinated than their three crew counterparts. Steven From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: S.Tolboom@kub.nl (S. TOLBOOM) Subject: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tilburg University, The Netherlands Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:28 ######################################### #The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995# ######################################### Planes listed : - Avro RJ (70/85/100) - Canadair RJ - Embraer 145 - Fokker Jetline (F70/F100) I have not included the MD-95 because it is already listed in Andrew Chuangs list. ______________________________________________________________________ Plane type | Avro RJ | Canadair | Embraer | Fokker | --------------------\ | 70/85/100 | RJ | 145 | 70 | 100 | Airline \ | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Brit Air | | 3 | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Austrian Airlines | | | | 4 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Comair | | 5 | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastern Trade Wings | | | 3 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Alitalia | | | | 15 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Crossair | 12(100) | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Air Canada | | 14 | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- THY | 2(100) | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- BWIA | | | 5 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Formosa Airlines | | | | | 2 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vietnam Airlines | | | | 2 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SAM | 1(100) | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- KLM | | | | 4 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Sabena | 23(85) | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Lufthansa | 5(85) | 7 | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tyrolean | | 4 | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- British Midland | | | | 2 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --Malmo Aviation cancelled their order for 5 RJ 85s. *Please respond by Email (S.Tolboom@kub.nl), I lack time to browse through the newsgroups regularly. From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: Re: 777F References: <44k9k6$b9g@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:28 The 777F for FedEx may necessarity not be better over the MD-11. FedEx already has a large DC-10 fleet and the MD-11 compliments it well with its similar size, same manufacturer & aircraft commonality, increased range, etc. The 777F also may not be the right size for the standard AMJ, AYY, SAA, or AKE freight cans FedEx uses. The MD-11 seems to pack them in nicely from what I've seen on the FedEx ramp. If the 777F is even just a few feet wider, it wastes space on the aicraft if the cans can't be optimally placed there. As for the 747-400F for FedEx, it will probably never happen. They don't like their 747s now (they just don't fit their operation) and will rid all of them in the next 5 years or so. From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: formula for great circle computation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:28 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) writes: > acos( sin(lat1) * sin(lat2) + cos(lat1) * cos(lat2) * cos(theta) ) [Where acos is done in radians] > Multiply that by the radius of the earth (i.e., 6371.2 kilometers) to > get a reasonable approximation of the great circle distance. Right, it's a reasonable approximation. So don't be fooled by that "6371.2 km" -- that implies a spurious degree of precision. The radius of the Earth varies by more then 40 km between poles and equator. And if you want the distance flown rather than the ground distance covered, you also need to take the flying altitude into account! -- Mark Brader, msb@sq.com "I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pedantic and SoftQuad Inc., Toronto that's just as good." -- D Gary Grady My text in this article is in the public domain. From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Thrust in idle engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:29 When an engine is "idle" (eg: when aircraft awaiting takeoff, when aircraft finally parks at the gate etc), how much thrust is being generated ? If brakes are not applied, will the aircraft start moving right away with engines "idling" ? When idling, do the compressor blades spin slowly enough to be seen ? Also, in a previous posting, someone said that without an APU, an aircraft would require power and "air" from the ground to start its engine. Are we talking about compressed air ? What for ? Also, why are DC9s and 727s capable of backing up from the gate without being pushed ? Is it a technical or legal consideration ? (eg: engines being far enough away from terminal for noise control etc). From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin Fiddler Subject: Re: identifying engines by sound References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:29 The worst noise I ever heard was one of those gigantic transport Antonovs (high wing, four engines, very very very big) landing and then taxying. I was about a mile away, and when just taxying, the noise was painful! Martin From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Wish.u.knew@Doncha.megaweb.com (NADIR) Subject: Re: identifying engines by sound References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Megaweb Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:29 One other interesting sound- the sound of Russian Jet engines. They have a very distinctive, higher pitched sound than other jet engines. I used to watch the Lot and Aeroflot planes depart from JFK and the sound of their engines was always unmistakeable. Steve From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drayovas@shadow.net (Bob Danielson) Subject: Re: identifying engines by sound References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:29 On 06 Sep 95 01:04:11 , Steve Lacker wrote: >Other interesting engine sounds I've noted in my travels: Steve: I always liked that astounding crackle from the R/R engines on the BAC-111. Ever hear a BOAC 707 with R/R turbojets?? Very close to a B-52 in overall noise pollution. I don't know what engine the USAF used in the F-105 but they used to go over my house in the early 60's and that was a champion noise maker, too. From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: Engines (Was Re: Boeing in the WSJ) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:29 Andrew Chuang (chuanga@wis.com) wrote: : Historically, the late comer or the new engine doesn't do well. For : example, the CF6 on the B747-200 (mostly powered by the JT9D), the JT9D : on the DC-10 (mostly powered by the CF6), the PW4000 on the A300/310 and : the B767 (mostly powered by the CF6), the PW2000 on the B757 (mostly : powered by the RB.211), and the V2500 on the A320 (mostly powered : by the CFM56). Many of the late comers in the above examples are much : better engines, but they fail to capture the majority of their respective : market. However, the introduction of PW2000 forced R-R to upgrade their : RB.211-535 engine also forced GE (which was going to offer the CF6-32) to : drop out of the market. Similarly, the V2500 forced CFMI to upgrade their : CFM56-5B. Am I correct that the RB.211 had so many problems during its development that Rolls Royce went bankrupt, and these engine problems almost caused Lockheed to go bankrupt because the L-1011 had been designed around the RB.211? Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Engines (Was Re: Boeing in the WSJ) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:30 chuanga@wis.com (Andrew Chuang) wrote: > the PW2000 on the B757 (mostly powered by the RB.211) More RB211's than PW2000s on 757's? I didn't know that, and in fact would have guessed the opposite. Actually, in casual obesrvations I've seen approximately equal numbers. Does anyone know the percentage split between the Rolls and Pratt versions of the 757? -- 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 Oct 13 01:30:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Engines (Was 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: 13 Oct 95 01:30:30 >More RB211's than PW2000s on 757's? I didn't know that, and in fact would have >guessed the opposite. Actually, in casual obesrvations I've seen approximately >equal numbers. Does anyone know the percentage split between the Rolls and >Pratt versions of the 757? In another post, Andrew recently said that the RB.211 has roughly 55-60% of the customers but more like 75-80% of the aircraft. The difference comes from some of the largest fleets (Delta, Northwest, United) using Pratts. Notably, one of the larger 757 customers switched from Pratt to Rolls. UPS started off with the PW2040 (a higher thrust engine for the higher weight freighters than the PW2037 usually used on passenger 757s) for their 757-200PF fleet. After the first 35 aircraft, they switched to the RB.211-535E4 for future orders, with at least 15 Rolls-equipped aircraft now in service. That's a pretty expensive change seeing as how it adds another engine type to their fleet. (Their only other Rolls engines are Tays, on their re-engined 727s.) -- 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 Oct 13 01:30:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: FAA Performance Regulations question. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:30 In article amit@klondike.winternet.com (Amit Bhati) writes: For those familiar with FAA regulations on Aircraft and Engine Performance, here is a question. I believe there muct be very specific procedures from the FAA about how and for what an engine (and other parts of the aircraft) has to be tested to keep it in continued operation. Can someone point me to sources of published information on Engine and Aircraft Performance Regulations and Procedures to check for compliance that the FAA has/had formed. Are such technical regulations different for different countries? Where can I get a list of documents that detail these procedures and regulations? ----- This has to be answered in 2 parts: 1) The aircraft or engine manufacturer must provide an official Maintenance Manual (and other documents) which is certified along with the aircraft or engine, to allow for "continued airworthiness". (FAR Part 25.1527 and 25 App. H) 2) The airline which operates the aircraft/engine must use an airline maintenance manual, based upon the aircraft/engine manufacturer, by which all aircraft maintenance is performed. Changes to this manual must be approved by the airline engineering department. (FAR Part 121 Subpart L, Parts 121.361 - 121.380a inclusive). The main point is, that the FAA does not generally develop or mandate particular maintenance programs for aircraft and engines, but instead requires that the manufacturer and operator develop these maintenance procedures, which it then inspects (usually via a designee) and approves. As for ensuring compliance, every action that is taken by a mechanic is checked and documented in some way (i.e. logbook signoff, work cards for periodic maintenance or modifications, repair records, returns to service) so that there will be complete accountability for every aircraft/engine maintenance action taken. These records are audited by several FAA inspectors who are experts in their areas of responsibility regularly. The airlines and FAA take these records and responsibilities very seriously, as do the mechanics and other maintenance personnel. ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: snowd@coral.indstate.edu Subject: Re: Performance References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:30 In article ajvdplas@pi.net writes: >Can anybody tell me if there is a difference in jet and turboprop in >calculating takeoff-performance. Is the obstructionclearanceheight for a >jet (25 ft) the same as for a turboprop, or is this height 50 ft. I fly >a turboprop and i read that somewhere, but in our AOM they still use the >obstacleheight of 35 ft, so I might be wrong in this. The requirements which spell out engine-out takeoff performance requirements is FAR 25, specifically sections 101-129 (I believe). The 50ft obstacle is a part 23 requirement, while the 35ft height is the height the aircraft will cross the departure end of the runway, at V2 speed, with an engine out, the engine out having been detected at V1 speed, and rotation occuring at Vr speed. The 35ft obstacle clearance requirement also comes into play in computing departure area performance. You must reduce the actual takeoff path (again assuming an engine out), by .9% (at least for a twin engine, i.e., DC9), this reduced path must clear all obstacles in the departure path by 35ft. From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Rolls-Royce Pratt & Whitney Merge 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: 13 Oct 95 01:30:31 In article , Andrew Chuang wrote: >R-R's RB211-524 and Trent may not do as well as the PW4000 or the CF-6, >but the few customers that use the -524/Trent are extremely healthy >airlines (for example, Cathay Pacific and British Airways). The RB211-535 >has 75-80% of all the B757 customers and between 55%-60% of all the >installed engines on the B757. Furthermore, R-R has a much more mature >marketing than Pratt in the industrial applications of their turbo fan >engines (which account for a significant amount of R-R's business). In >the past few years, I believe R-R's profits are comparable to Pratt's. >Furthermore, France's SNECMA has terrible financial results, but it does >not stop GE from doing business with SNECMA (and CFMI is very successful). You can't draw an equivalence between RR and SNECMA---SNECMA is still under government control, and by a government that clearly won't let it fail. RR is another story. I think there would be huge political ructions if RR failed, but in the end the British govt would probably let it go. RNA From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gernot@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Gernot Auer (Prak 1 Gerhard)) Subject: Water injection ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Technology, Vienna, Dept. for Realtime Systems, AUSTRIA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:31 Hi! A friend of mine and myself were wondering about a label connected with a picture in the Airlines Magazine, displaying a 707 of broken up People Express Airline, describing the takeoff supported by 'water injection'. Since I am no aircraft technician I can only guess it means to inject water into turbofans to increase power, which sounds pretty weird. Is there anyone who can support clues how 'water injection' in any way could effectively increase engine power? We were discussing about how water as material itself could increase the quantity of boost generated by the engines in first place, and thus increasing the overall power. Any possibility this theory could make it ? Thanks for listening! Gernot gernot@idefix.vmars.tuwien.ac.at From kls Fri Oct 13 01:30:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Audio channel wiring Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 01:30:31 I have been on aircraft in which the audio channel guide indicated that the seats near the galley could hear the movie sound on a different channel that the remainder of the seats. Why are these seats wired differently? From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Cabin Pressurization 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: 13 Oct 95 02:06:32 >But the question is still: is this regulation a component of the >*pressurization* system? Does it respond to user commands or as a >byproduct of what the pressurization controller is trying to do? The pack valve is controlled only by the pack switch (and some protective circuits), so no, it's not part of the pressurization system. Of course, if the valve is closed there is no pressurization system. Without a properly operating air conditioning system there is no pressurization system. Many 727's (engines at idle) can't maintain the cabin on descent with one pack operating - too many leaks in the pressure vessel. Push up the power and everything's fine. The MD80 has a 'Low Flow' light on the pressurization controller. When this light comes on, it means that the Pressurization Controller has decided that there is not enough air entering the cabin. Air Conditioning and pressuriztion work together. From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eemaan@aimnet.com (Ethan Schell) Subject: Re: Cabin Pressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:32 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: > 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? No. Cabin pressurization is regulated only by controlling the outflow of air from the cabin. Some cabin pressure controllers may react to loss of air conditioning packs; some automated aircraft may kick remaining packs into high flow mode when a pack is lost; however, when all is said and done, cabin pressurization is simply regulated by controlling the outflow of air from the cabin. Ethan Schell Your life vest is under your seat. From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dzul@theos.com (Dzulkifli Basri) Subject: Re: re: Cabin pressure controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:33 In message - Pete Finlay writes: :> :>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 :( All the Singapore Airlines 747-400s have humidifiers in the cockpits and there isn't any problems with the electronics, CRTs and computers. Are humidifiers fitted as an option on the 400s? its only me .................................dzul ************************************************* i am who i am but i am not my company's spokesman From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: re: Cabin pressure controls References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:33 Robert D. Seals" wrote on Fri Sep 8 10:47:10 1995:- > 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. > ... > So, maybe some planes have pressure problems, or maybe you are prone to > colds. Having any kind of upper respiratory tract infection is a good reason for cancelling your flight, I have heard. I used to suffer on the way down until I discovered scuba diving, and the instructor explained the physics and biology of equalising pressure in the various head cavities (particularly the middle ear). Basically, the eustachian tube connects the middle ear (the space immediately inside the ear-drum) with the back of the throat. Generally (in the absence of serious blockage as might occur if you have a cold) it allows air or fluid under excess pressure out quite readily, but needs some persuasion to allow air back in, hence most discomfort is experienced during descent rather than ascent. The regulator on an aqualung delivers air to the mouth of a diver at the same pressure as the surrounding water. Otherwise the pressure would make it impossible to inflate the rib-cage, as I discovered in an abortive experiment in the local swimming pool at the age of 12 with a new design of snorkel using a flexible tube whose end was kept above water by a float. At a mere 6 feet, both the tube and my chest were squashed flat! :-) The diver's problem is to equalize the varying pressure in the mouth and lungs with that in the ear and sinus cavities. Going up is no problem: the eustachian tubes vent the pressure quite happily. While descending, however, it is necessary to practise the equalisation drill for every few feet of increased depth. The diver pinches his or her nostrils with the thumb and forefinger using the grooves designed into the face-mask, blocks the throat by placing the tongue against the soft palate (the mouth, of course, is held open by the regulator mouthpiece) and blows out through the nose. To the accompaniment of much loud squeaking of air in the eustachian tubes the ears eventually "pop" and the pressure differential vanishes, along with all the pain from external pressure on the ear-drums. Without this, the pain below a few feet would be unbearable and the pressure at even a fairly modest depth would rupture the ear-drum. The equalisation manoeuvre is more difficult the greater the pressure differential (which tends to flatten the the eustachian tubes) so the rule is to descend slowly, and equalize often. Since I learned this drill I have found both flying, and ordinary surface diving while snorkelling, very much more comfortable. During the climb just swallow. If necessary suck a boiled sweet or try turning your head from side to side. During descent, practise the equalisation drill every few minutes and don't give up until you feel your ears "pop". People differ, and some will find this easier than others. A friend of mine told me that he had never experienced discomfort while flying and could "pop" his ears without even holding his nose. I have not found it so easy, and for some reason my left ear is more reluctant to "pop" than my right. A problem from which young children frequently suffer is known as "gluey ear". It is caused by blockage of the eustachian tubes and results in a build-up of mucous in the middle ear. If not corrected it can lead to temporary partial deafness and in severe cases could cause permanent damage including burst eardrums. The treatment is a simple surgical procedure to insert a grommet in the eardrum to allow the mucous to vent itself externally. After a few months, the grommet is either surgically removed, or drops out spontaneously and the tiny aperture in the eardrum heals. Gluey ear normally disappears during mid-teens, and seems to be due to the imaturity of the plumbing in childrens' heads. It might be worth bearing this in mind if you want to take your kids on a 'plane. 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: What's the difference between Christopher Reeve and O.J. Simpson? A: OJ's gonna walk! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kcjarvis@tribeca.ios.com,[Kenny.Jarvis] Subject: AA Landing Lights Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Online Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:33 Is it policy for American Airline heavy jets to land without landing lights when there are low ceilings. While watching planes at JFK today, I noticed all American Airlines 767 and A300 landed with no landing lights. The ceiling was 500 overcast. All other 767 and A300 landed with landing lights on. Anyone have an idea?? From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: matloff@ni.net (vic matloff) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Smoke and Mirrors Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:34 John: It looks like you're going to get more information on airliner rates of climb than you ever imagined or for that matter, cared about. Let me add a couple more. Temperature, from the ground to cruising altitude has a significant effect on climb performance. One other little thing. After climbing at an indicated airspeed to around 28-30 thousand feet, again depending on temperature, you change from IAS to mach number, usually .80-.82 till you reach cruising altitude. vic matloff -- vic matloff From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:34 In article Bob_Crownfield writes: >I think a 727 can climb at 4700 feet per minute, if I remember correctly. Empty tanks, no galleys installed, no seats, no passengers, no cargo, right? Typical takeoff rates for a loaded 747, L-1011, or 727 would be on the order of 1000-1500 fpm. I have seen 747s maintain flap settings through 10,000' in order to maintain the 250 knot speed restriction. -- 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 Oct 13 02:06:34 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: 13 Oct 95 02:06:34 Mike Kennon (MKennon@nando.net) wrote: : > I can help you out as far as a moderatly loaded Fokker F-28 on a : >standard day. : ... : >Decent, idle power, 320kias: 5000-6000fpm. : The decent rate seems very high to me. I am not a commerical pilot, : only a flight simiulator pilot, so I may be wrong! Nope, it's correct. Between 35000 and 29000, or so, your decent rate (in the FK-28) is pegged above 6000 fpm. Below ~23000, we transition to 320 KIAS, and the decent rate is 4000-5000 fpm. Your pitch attitude varies from ~7 degrees nosedown to ~4 degrees nosedown, depending on your altitude. The reason we stay high for as long as possible, and decend at idle power, is primarily fuel consumption. There are instances where it's not practical to do this, but it's desired whenever possible. Gary -- Gary Neff From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: vpribish@prokofiev. (vincent pribish) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: vpribish@prokofiev. Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame IN Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:34 chris and john, As i learned in class the other day, airliner climb rates are heavily dictated by local noise regulations....you may want to climb very very steeply after liftoff and then as you pass over the wealthy subdivision in your flight path you will throttle back and crawl along so you don't disturb the taxpayers. vin From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jfc@mit.edu (John Carr) Subject: Re: Fuel tank safety mech.(question) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute Of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:34 In article , Daniel Wills wrote: >>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. > >Good idea. Alot of considerations though - weight,cost,etc. How often would pilots have enough advance warning to activate such a system? Don't count incidents where the crash itself would be fatal. It seems likely that activating a system to fill the tanks with foam would shut down the engines within minutes, after they burned the last of the uncontaminated fuel, so the system would only be used if the pilots were certain they were going to crash. I can think of one accident where it would have been useful (the much-discussed crash a few years ago of an airliner with total hydraulic failure) and many more where it would not have made a difference. -- John Carr (jfc@mit.edu) From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: Aviation Fuel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:35 In article , Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >A JT8D burns about 1,000pph at idle and about 3,000pph at cruise. Don't : >have any SFC numbers - those books are in storage for another month or so. : Here are a few SFCs (at max power) with typical applications: : JT8D-9 0.60 727, 737, DC-9 ... [snip] : PW2037 0.33 757, C-17 : PW2040 0.563 757PF ^^^^^ The number for the PW2040 looks awfully high for sfc @ max power, it probably should be for sfc @ cruise. : Now, how'd you like to give us a tutorial on just what SFC means? (T)SFC is (Thrust) specific fuel consumption, and is computed based on fuel flow rate per unit thrust generated (i.e, lb/hr fuel per lb thrust, or the more usual notation, lb/hr/lb). Most engine manufacturers quote (t)sfc for thrust at max power or take-off. Rolls-Royce quotes sfc at cruise (after all most of the fuel is consumed during cruise). Most of today's high-bypass turbo fan engines have sfc in the range of .32-.34 at take-off. The sfc for the GE90, I believe, is at around .28-.29 because it has a higher by-pass ratio. (As you can see from Karl's list, the dramatic reduction of sfc from .60 for the JT8D which has a by-pass ratio of 1.2(?) to .33 for the PW2000 which has a by-pass ratio of somewhere between 5 and 6, I think.) However, the GE90 is a much heavier engine (two to three thousand pounds heavier per engine, or four to six thousand pounds per aircraft, or an equivalent of 20 to 30 more passengers!). Thus, according to R-R (its Trent 800 has the highest sfc among the three competitors but the lightest in weight) for trips shorter than 4,000 nm, the Trent-powered 777 will burn less fuel than the GE- or P&W-powered 777. Take the R-R number with a grain of salt. If you have followed the news related to BA's B777 delivery delay, you must be aware of GE's guarantee of 5% less (actual not specfic) fuel consumption than the Trent. GE insisted that they would meet the goal. Only time will tell. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rartus@lava.net Subject: Cockpit noise Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NotMuch Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:35 Does anyone out there have any information regarding the amount of cockpit noise there is in present day airliners such as B747-100/200/300s, 747-400s and any other Boeing airliner information you might have. I'm looking for information that a layman can understand. Any help or information you might have is most appreciated! Dick Artus From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: roger llewellyn Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: singapore airlines Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:35 As a british pilot now flying in singapore, i have a number of friends flying for Britannia airways. The airline now flies 767/757 all of which are and to the very best of my knowledge have always been 2 pilot operation. As a charter airline in the UK where making money and surviving is a constant challenge I'm sure the idea of employing a 3rd flight deck crew member " and pay him $80000 to pass forward the meal trays" would have the management pulling out their hair !!!! kind regards From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:35 In article , Justin Talbot-Stern 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. >I had the opportunity to work in Ansett's Engineering department during my >summer holidays and spent a lot of time in their 767-200 cockpits performing >CRT diagnostic tests and FMS data uploads. >As for Ansett being the only airline in the world to operate three crew 767, I >think this is wrong. Last January, Ansett took delivery of an additional >used 767-200 from Britannia Airways and I think it was a three crew aircraft >as well. However, the 767's they're thinking of acquiring over the next few >years have the standard two-pilot cockpits. No. It definitely wasn't. Avweek mentioned at the time that they had to get special permission (for which they paid some compensation to the individuals involved) from the unions to break the labour agreement that they had made years earlier to only operate three crew 767s. I have read in several places that Ansett is the only operator of three crew 767s. (However, I cannot cite a reliable source offhand, so it is concevable that I am wrong. However, I don't think so) Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk Disclaimer: the opinions presented here are mine alone, but they should be yours too because they're right. From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <44h7kc$8c@kragar.kei.com> <44n3sm$j7v@kragar.kei.com> <44rhkh$efd@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:36 acvitale@magg.net (acvitale) wrote: > >Eastern was the adopting carrier for the 727 >Lufthansa was the adopting carrier for the 737 > >United did not start either of these two aircraft. I believe that this is wrong. I seem to recall that United had the #1 727, which was in fact the first 727-100 to fly as part of the flight test program. (I have a vague memory of seeing a picture of the plane, in United livery, making a high-speed taxi run through water to prove that the rear-mounted engines wouldn't flame out due to water ingestion.) I also seem to recall that it was only a few years ago that this machine was retired, and I believe handed over to Boeing for display. Could be wrong, though- I'm going from memory. From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <44h7kc$8c@kragar.kei.com> <44n3sm$j7v@kragar.kei.com> <44rhkh$efd@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:36 >I believe that this is wrong. I seem to recall that United had the #1 727, >which was in fact the first 727-100 to fly as part of the flight test >program. Correct. >I also seem to recall that it was only a few years ago that this machine >was retired, and I believe handed over to Boeing for display. Also correct. N7001U operated its penultimate flight (UA 1283 SLC-SFO) on December 28, 1990. It was then repainted into its original 1964 colors and flew one last revenue flight (UA 838 SFO-SEA) on January 13, 1991. It was then ferried to Boeing Field and donated to the Museum of Flight, sans engines, which were returned to United. I've seen the aircraft at Paine Field since then, which is where the museum has a restoration center if I'm not mistaken, so perhaps they got some other engines for it, or borrowed some when they needed to ferry it from Boeing Field to Paine Field. -- 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 Oct 13 02:06:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Keith Edmunds Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: kae@itworks.demon.co.uk Organization: Midnite Hax Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:36 This may also be interesting (then again, it may not...): During flight, the windows of Concorde get hot to the touch. Also, from its cruising altitude (56K - 60K feet) you can discern the curvature of the earth. Way to travel... ------------- Keith Edmunds Reading, UK ------------- From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:36 >> >Concord stretches at speeds past mach 1. Can anyone elucidate on this. >> >Why does it happen or does it happen? Based on an article in Science & Vie (Mars 1989), the french Aerospatiale were, at the time thinking of the next generation concorde: Concorde ATSF USA project Length 62,17m 76m Wingspan 25,60m 36,6m Takoff Weight 183t 225t 350t Max speed Mach 2 Mach 2-2,4 Mach 2,7 Passengers 128 225 300 Range 6000km 12000km At the time, the article stated that the US projects were more elaborate with a capacity of 300 passengers with take off weight of 350 tonnes. The US plane was to have been designed for Mach 2,7 (2900kmh) whereas the next generation Concorde (ATSF) was to have been limited to Mach 2,4 (2500kmh) Limiting the french "new" concorde to mach 2,4 resulted in major savings: -less high-tech materials used for the skin of plane (because of heating/expansion) -no need for special precautions with regards to fuel tanks which, at very high temperatures associated with flights above Mach 2,4 cause problems with fuel storage. The article also stated that if the existing Concorde were to be built today with todays' materials, the same 128 passenger capacity would weight only 120t instead of the currrent 183t and its range would be increased by 900km because of the lower weight and improved aerodynamics. All this is, of course,. old information (1989) but it does give some information about the heating problems on supersonic planes. The article also confirmed that the heating of the surfaces is caused by the air particles hitting the plane's surfaces and transforming their cinetic energy into heat. Is the correct interpretation correct ?: Air particle has no speed (cinetic energy = 0) Air particle is hit by moving plane. (cinetic energy = 0) Air particle is quickly accelerated (cinetic energy > 0) Air particle then de-celerates, releasing cinetic energy Air particle then returns to normal (cinetic energy =0) Or does the heat transfer not require that the air particle actually accelerate first ? From kls Fri Oct 13 02:06:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bruce.e.oneel.1@gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce O'Neel) Subject: The Ultimate Travel Gift Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 02:06:37 >From the Washington Post, Sunday 10/8, Travel Section: "Got $100,000-plus to spend on your beloved frequent flier for Christmas? This year's Neiman-Marcus catalogue lets you give your honey his or her name written large on the nose of a new United Boeing 777 for a year, and unlimited worldwide first-class travel for two, also good for one year -- plus a trip to the Boeing factory in Seattle to "Take delivery" of your plane. Bids on "Name the Plane," closing Nov. 1, start at $100,000, with money over that amount donated to charity. Catalogues are $6.50 from 1-800-825-8000" bruce From kls Fri Oct 13 12:38:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:18 > For an emergency landing, is it ever desireable to dump excess fuel to reduce > the possibility or extent of a fire? Would it make a difference or is fuel > dumping only for reducing the landing weight? No, this is never the case. Fuel jettison capability is only for the specific purpose of reducing the landing weight of the aircraft. Simon. simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Fri Oct 13 12:38:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:18 >For an emergency landing, is it ever desireable to dump excess fuel to reduce >the possibility or extent of a fire? Would it make a difference or is fuel >dumping only for reducing the landing weight? Some time ago, I mentioned on "airliners" an accident that was referred to in a reader's letter to a newspaper, without much detail other than that it was an East German aircraft. Nobody commented, however. According to the letter, the aircraft dumped fuel before landing, but was placed on the stack. Due to peculiar weather conditions (hot and with a temperature inversion) the fuel vaporised and hung around in a cloud. On its next circuit of the stack the aircraft flew into the cloud of its own vaporised fuel, which its engines ignited, causing an explosion and loss of the aircraft. Is this a feasible accident scenario, or another urban myth? -- 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 Oct 13 12:38:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chris tassio Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: news@shiva.usa.net Organization: HIGH-LIFT WINGS INC. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:18 rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: >I have seen 747s maintain flap settings through 10,000' in >order to maintain the 250 knot speed restriction. One correction to the above-according to the FARS an aircraft which because of its gross wt. MIN- MAN speed (clean) is in excess of 250kts that aircraft is not required to delay clean up below 10000ft and my fly at Min Man even if it exceeds 250kts below 10000ft. Regards-chris(capt A300-600r) From kls Fri Oct 13 12:38:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chris tassio Subject: Re: AA Landing Lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: news@shiva.usa.net Organization: HIGH-LIFT WINGS INC. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:19 It is AA policy to display landing lights below 18000 ft. This is however left to the Capt.Also some Capts use only wing lights during daylight hours and use the nose wheel landing and taxi lights at night. Regards-chris(capt-A300-600r) From kls Fri Oct 13 12:38:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John P. Wangermann) Subject: Re: A310, low visibility landing in Zurich, Switzerland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:19 In article , Frank Loeffel wrote: >My parents flew from Cyprus to Zurich-Kloten, Switzerland, in a Cyprus >Airlines Airbus A310. In Kloten, the weather was foggy with only a few >patches of ground visible from the air. > >Well, my parents told me about a few things that the captain did: >- The captain announced that he wouldn't anticipate a problem due to the >low visibility. My parents thought that this was a rather strange >announcment. >- The captain announced that he would fly a 360 degree circle to check >things out. Perhaps my parents misinterpreted something and the circle >was just mandated by air traffic control for spacing. The 360 circle sounds a bit strange, but maybe the plane had shown some inaccuracy on a previous automatic landing. It doesn't seem unusual for pilots to mention that a landing will be fully automatic - I've had both Lufthansa and BA pilots announce this. >They asked me, a single engine land pilot, what whas going on on that >flight but I didn't have a clue. So the questions: > >- Can airliners land at Zurich-Kloten in zero visibility? What is >the equipment at an airport required for zero visibility landings called? Although I'm not intimately familiar with Zurich, it's in mountains and near water, so near ideal conditions for lots of fog. So I'm sure that airport and Swissair aircraft are fitted with CatIII (i.e., can land with 0 visibility (IIIc), 0 ft decision height) equipment. >- Can an A310 land in zero visibility? What is the equipment in an airliner >required for zero visibility landings called? See above. >- Can an A310 do "automatic" (autopilot until touch down) landings? >What is an autopilot that allows "automatic" landings called? >Can modern airliners generally do "automatic" landings? If visibility >is zero or nearly zero, which style of landing would the captain generally >prefer? With 0 visibility, the pilot must have Cat IIIc ratings, the aircraft must have CatIII equipment and so must the airport. And it has to be an automatic landing. Otherwise the flight must divert. I'm sure other posters can give a more accurate reply, but I think my answers are "in the ball park". John Wangermann From kls Fri Oct 13 12:38:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: meb4593@ungoliant.ca.boeing.com Subject: Re: Ansett "fixes" its 767s References: <44ffad$1b8@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <44h7kc$8c@kragar.kei.com> <44n3sm$j7v@kragar.kei.com> <44rhkh$efd@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:19 >>>>> "Karl" == Karl Swartz writes: Karl> seen the aircraft at Paine Field since then, which is where the museum Karl> has a restoration center if I'm not mistaken, so perhaps they got some Yes, this is true. -- Michael Bain (206) 294-0913 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Cabin Systems - IFE meb4593@ungoliant.ca.boeing.com From kls Fri Oct 13 12:38:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: light switches 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: 13 Oct 95 12:38:19 >Is this why there is a such time delay between the actual push of the >button and the light turning on or off? Yes, there's quite a bit of electron movement going on to turn those lights on and off. As an aside, the reading lights going off on engine start always makes for a flurry of light switch pushing. The lights go off because of 'load shedding' which is designed to unload the apu as it provides air to start the engines. Dave From kls Fri Oct 13 12:38:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: dpw@dircon.co.uk (Daniel Wilder) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: dpw@dircon.co.uk Organization: Direct Connection (Call 0181 297 2200 for info) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:20 On 13 Oct 95 02:06:34 , vpribish@prokofiev. (vincent pribish) wrote: >chris and john, >As i learned in class the other day, >airliner climb rates are heavily dictated >by local noise regulations....you may want to >climb very very steeply after liftoff and then as you >pass over the wealthy subdivision in your flight path >you will throttle back and crawl along so you don't >disturb the taxpayers. That's a rather cynical view to take! I'm sure the "non-wealthy" subdivisions at the end of the runway would prefer the noise then have aircraft, using reduced power, knock tiles of their house roofs on the occasions that the passengers go over board with carry on duty free and the crew under estimate the take off weight. Just for interest, enclosed is some text from the Heathrow, London, UK noise abatment procedure for departures: "After take-off or overshoot operate aircraft so that it is at or above 1000ft AAL at the point nearest to the noise monitoring terminal for relevant departure and so that it will not cause, Concorde excepted, more than 110PNdB by day or 102PndB by night at the noise monitoring terminal. Maintain a minimum climb gradient of 243ft per nm (4%) to at least 4000ft at power settings which ensure progressively decreasing noise levels at points on the ground under the flight path beyond the monitoring terminal." These noise monitoring stations record the noise on the ground. Any operators who have aircraft that break the set thresholds are fined heavily.. You see, they do care about the locals. Regards, Daniel. P.S. In my personal opinion, I think they should bring back the pure jet! --- Daniel Wilder dpw@dircon.co.uk From kls Fri Oct 13 12:38:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikeb@ssd.fsi.com (Mike Bates) Subject: Re: Question: Cabin environment on long haul flights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: FlightSafety-SSD, Tulsa, OK, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:20 In article leishman@hellcat.eng.umd.edu. (leishman) writes: 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. We flew AA86 from Chicago to Heathrow on an MD-11 back on 8 September. We also noticed that the plane was kept warmer than usual. My wife noticed a passenger complaining to a flight attendant that the cabin temp should be 22C, and he emphasized the point by saying "two-two" and drawing the numbers in the air with his finger. In the past I've usually had trouble staying warm on transatlantic flights. This time I was too hot to sleep. I didn't notice the problem on the flight back. (The inflight movie on the westbound trip was "Outbreak". Do you really want your passengers thinking about the possibility of catching a deadly incurable airborne virus when they're breathing recirculated air?) -- Mike Bates FlightSafety International, Simulation Systems Div. Principal Engineer 2700 North Hemlock Circle Computer Systems Group Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012 mikeb@ssd.fsi.com 918-251-0500 ext. 598 From kls Fri Oct 13 12:38:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sbroon@aol.com (SBroon) Subject: Re: Question: Cabin environment on long haul flights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: sbroon@aol.com (SBroon) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:20 I don't think its the temperature that causes what you speak of, its the reduction in air pressure. Yes, they do let it go below one atmosphere...who wouldn't want a bunch of cranky people asleep instead?? From kls Fri Oct 13 12:38:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Question: Cabin environment on long haul flights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:21 leishman@hellcat.eng.umd.edu. (leishman) wrote: > >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. Well, its not a question of *oxygen* since under normal conditions airliners don't use pure oxygen- they use outside air which is compressed by the engines, then cooled by heat exchangers to pressurize the cabin (see the related thread on cabin pressurization and airflow). Oxygen (as in bottled O2) is only fed to the drop-down masks in an emergency, I believe. -- 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 Oct 13 12:38:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "W. Patrick McVay" Subject: Re: Question: Cabin environment on long haul flights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McVay Consulting Associates Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:21 I am a consulting biomedical engineer who is working with a physician who has developed a breath collector to monitor diseases in patients. We are looking to place the device on commercial and military (cargo) aircraft to monitor flight crew or flight attendents over a long flight. I need to know the electrical power requirements and standards for any electrical device that is to be "plugged" into the electrical power of airplanes. Can anyone recommend a source of infomation. W. Patrick McVay, PE | Voice: (215)340-9891 McVay Consulting Associates | Fax: (215)340-0547 187 E. Ashland St. | Internet: mcvay@omni.voicenet.com Doylestown. PA 18901 From kls Fri Oct 13 12:38:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Michaels Subject: Re: Sabena goes for Avro RJs, rather than Fokkers References: <425ju4$mkf@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: paul@mides.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Oct 95 12:38:21 British Midland are replacing their DC 9s (-15 and -30) with Fokker 70 and 100 machines. Having heard an F70, then a DC9-30 leave East Midlands in succession, it's a good decision. The 737s are staying. The 146/RJ family is even quieter. I don't care what it looks like (actually, the high wing is better from the passenger's viewpoint). I think that BM were the first to order the F70/100 mix in the UK. Regards Paul -- Paul Michaels EMail paul@mides.demon.co.uk From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Le-Vien Subject: Re: Water injection ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: slevien@eggw.demon.co.uk Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:26 In message Gernot Auer (Prak 1 Gerhard wrote: > Is there anyone who can support clues how 'water injection' in any way could > effectively increase engine power? I don't know about the theory but water injection is certainly used on the BAC1-11 when the temperature is high. De-mineralised water is used. It has to be got rid off before the freezing level therefore you may well see a BAC1-11 trailing it soon after take-off. The vent is at the back, under the fuselarge. They sometimes 'wee' as they taxi out if it's decided water injection is not required for thst take-off! I believe in Germany some years back kerosene was put into a 1-11 in mistake for water. The aircraft had to force land on an autobahn soon after take-off. -- Steve Le-Vien AFTN: EGGWZPZX Air Traffic Services Manager tel: +44 1582 395230 London Luton Airport, UK fax: +44 1582 395381 slevien@eggw.demon.co.uk My views, not LLA Ltd From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Water injection ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:26 In article , gernot@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Gernot Auer (Prak 1 Gerhard)) wrote: >Is there anyone who can support clues how 'water injection' in any way could >effectively increase engine power? > >We were discussing about how water as material itself could increase >the quantity of boost generated by the engines in first place, and thus >increasing the overall power. Any possibility this theory could make >it ? Water injection is used quite widely for aircraft operating from high hot runways. There are 2 reasons this works 1)Water injected into the combustion chamber inlet as a liquid is quickly turned into steam from the heat. This causes increased pressure in the combustion chamber and therefore more power. 2) Water injected into the combustion chamber inlet cools the combustion gasses enough to allow more fuel to be added for increased power. This is because the single limiting factor to turbine engine operation is the turbine inlet temperature. more fuel creates more heat energy and the turbines cannot absorb it all and they fail. The water cools the gasses enough that more energy can be added to the airflow while keeping the temperature within limits. Any turbine engine book should have a chapter on this subject. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org WWW: http://www.io.org/~bradg/ A&P, AME (Canada), PPASEL (Canada) Leading Edge Aviation Services From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: soto@hous.inmet.com (David Soto) Subject: Re: Water injection ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Intermetrics, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:27 Gernot Auer (Prak 1 Gerhard) (gernot@vmars.tuwien.ac.at) wrote: : We were discussing about how water as material itself could increase : the quantity of boost generated by the engines in first place, and thus : increasing the overall power. Any possibility this theory could make : it ? It's not theory, but practical. Most engines (including airplane and car engines) run a rich air/fuel mixture for cooling (i.e., more fuel then required). This excess fuel does not burn as extra power but cools the combustion chambers (cylinders). By using water for cooling, the air/fuel mixture can be leaned to obtain the optimum fuel/air mixture to obtain max power. -ds From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eirikur@ix.netcom.com () Subject: Re: Water injection ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:27 gernot@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Gernot Auer (Prak 1 Gerhard)) wrote: >Is there anyone who can support clues how 'water injection' in any way could >effectively increase engine power? >We were discussing about how water as material itself could increase >the quantity of boost generated by the engines in first place, and thus >increasing the overall power. Any possibility this theory could make >it ? Gernot, Jet engines operate with much greater efficiency when they consume air that is cool and dence. That is to say that under these conditions, a larger quantity of air may be consumed at the same rpm. The conbustion process is more efficient with a higher air to fuel ratio for example, on a hot dry day jets generate less thrust than on a cold humid day. This phenomonon lead to the advent of water injection for use on some older jet engines. Forcing water into the inlet reprocuced the effect of a colder, more dence operating environment. Remember, also, that as the air passes through the compressor, it heats up due to friction. Depending on the engine, the air is usually at several hundred degrees F before it reaches the combustion chamber. Keeping this in mind, one is able to see that the water injected into the engine has become water vapor by the time it reaches the combustion chaimber. Hopefully I have helped you understand how and why water injection is used. If you have any further querries, you may e-mail me or post to the net any time. JCD USAF AVMAINT. From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Water injection ? 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: 31 Oct 95 00:31:27 gernot@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Gernot Auer (Prak 1 Gerhard)) writes: >Is there anyone who can support clues how 'water injection' in any way could >effectively increase engine power? I once took a HP-7 (a high wing twin turboprop seating about 50) out of Guatemala City. Guatemala city is higher than Denver. The captain and I watched as ground crew refilled the tank with alcohol and distilled water. The captain explained it's injected to cool the incoming fuel/air mix. This technique is also used on piston engines. Colder fuel&air mixes are more dense, hence contain more oxygen, and the expansion % of such is greater than that of a hotter load. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433 From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bill-os@ix.netcom.com (William Osmun ) Subject: Re: Water injection , answered (?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:28 >Is there anyone who can support clues how 'water injection' in any way >could effectively increase engine power? Engines use water injection as a way of increasing power available up to the engines rated power. An engine is rated for a given power at a given set of conditions, say 25,000 lbs of thrust @ sea level @ 70 degrees F. Well at 95 F at 2500 ft this engine would not be able to put out 25,000 lbs thrust but maybe 20,000 lbs. To get the thrust output up to the rated thrust (25,000) they can inject water into the intake. What this does is increase the density of the air so that the engine can perform as it should. The water vaporizes, absorbing heat from the air and cools it. So instead of the engine seeing 95 degree F air at density altitude of 2500 ft., it see's air with density equal to 70F air at sea level, it may even seem cooler. Some users even use a mixture of alcohol and water. They use this only when a reserve of power is needed, such as take off, as it requires quite a load of water. For example, a system for a Garrett TPE331-15AW uses about four (4) gallons of water a minute. This engine puts out 1650 HP, it's a Turboprop but the principle is the same. I don't think it's used as much if at all on the newer turbofan engines but is still an option for some turboprops. Not unique to turbine engines though, it can be used on piston engines also. From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gallope@admin.curtin.edu.au Subject: Re: Water injection ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Curtin University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:28 gernot@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Gernot Auer (Prak 1 Gerhard)) wrote: >A friend of mine and myself were wondering about a label connected >with a picture in the Airlines Magazine, displaying a 707 of broken >up People Express Airline, describing the takeoff supported by >'water injection'. Since I am no aircraft technician I can only guess >it means to inject water into turbofans to increase power, which >sounds pretty weird. >Is there anyone who can support clues how 'water injection' in any way could >effectively increase engine power? Water Injection was (is?) most definitely used to increase thrust. Of course not all engines have the facility available or fitted. We used water injection regularly on the 747-200 with Pratt and Whitney engines, on the route Bangkok - Athens. It was a few years back, but if my memory serves me correctly... Because Bangkok temperature was usually over the magical 29 degrees C and we had a large fuel load, there was usually a problem getting ariborne (even though the runway was around 11,000 ft long). Solution - (distilled) water injection. (The figure of 2,400 kgs of water sounds familiar, but I could be way out. - anyone know for sure?) The water was injected directly into the combustion chamber. It gave us a couple of thousand pounds extra thrust on each engine which was enough to get on our way. On lineup, as the engines were stabilised, the pumps were turned on and a noticeable drop in EGT (and from memory an * increase* in fuel flow) was checked. Any water pump failure before 80kts was an abort situation. Depending on the graphs, sometimes one pump failure was acceptable between 80 kts and V1, sometimes no pump failure was acceptable before V1. The water injection allowed higher fuel flows and power without the EGTs going over the limits . From memory a full load of water lasted exactly 3 minutes. (about 1500') If any pump failed early, the Flight Engineer had to be on the ball to retard the thrust lever to stop excessive EGT. Water Injection was certainly no friend of the engines, and put a lot of extra strain on them. But it worked!. TG From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dmacdoug@aol.com (DMacDoug) Subject: Re: Water injection ? References: 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: 31 Oct 95 00:31:28 You are correct in your assumption that the mass of the water itself increases power of the engine--it does indeed increase the total mass flow thru the engine, and thereby increases engine thrust. The largest effect however is cooling of the airflow through the compressor via evaporative effect of the "water". This increases the aerodynamic efficiency of the compressor. In turboprop systems I am familiar with, the liquid is a water-methanol mixture (typically 30%-40% methanol) such that the heating value of the alcohol offsets the thermal energy required to evaporate the water. In this way, the turbine temperature of the engine is not greatly affected when the water-methanol injection is turned on. It is primarily used to boost takeoff performance under hot/high conditions, and can provide a power boost on the order of 20% over "dry" performance. The aircraft typically has a regulated flow system which is actuated by the pilot, and enough water-methanol tank capacity to provide several minutes of augmentation (enough for 2-3 takeoffs). The water injection systems on the early turbojets used on 707's or DC-8's may be different, I am not familiar with them. From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Water injection ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:29 > We were discussing about how water as material itself could increase > the quantity of boost generated by the engines in first place, and thus > increasing the overall power. Any possibility this theory could make > it ? > > Thanks for listening! > > Gernot > > gernot@idefix.vmars.tuwien.ac.at Water was used in the past to basically increase the mass flow through the engine. In places of high ambient temperature (the tropics, etc) engine power is significantly decreased due to temperature, and so water injection was used to boost jet engine power back up to or above what it would be in a colder climate. The 707 and the 747 with earlier JT9s used water injection quite frequently, but as engines became more powerful, water injection was no longer necessary. Water was sprayed (in the case of the JT9) though the fuel manifold (a seperate pipe to the fuel though!) so as to increase the mass of flow through the turbine, thus a pressure and temperature drop across the turbine is reduced, increasing the jet pipe pressure, and thrust output. Also, the water drops the turbine inlet temperature, meaning more fuel can be scheduled without exceeding the metal specifications of the turbine (melting...). More fuel means more rpm, and the fast the engine spins, again the more thrust is produced. It worked quite well, however, the tanks that held the demineralised water, and the pumps, which were very high flow, added up to a significant amount of weight. So, there were disadvantages also. Simon. simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: alexandc10@aol.com (Alexandc10) Subject: Re: Water injection ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: alexandc10@aol.com (Alexandc10) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:29 "water injection" actually refers to a solution of water and methanol, injected in a finely atomized spray into the engine's intake zone. This helps performance in the following way: The atomized spray evaporates immediately, absorbing heat (585/cal/gm3) and effectively lowering the temperature of intake air. Lower temperature air is denser than higher temperature air. Turbine engines provide greater thrust, at lower internal temperatures, when provided with denser ambient air. H20/meth is quite effective, however it is expensive, and also corrosive. It can only be used during take-off. It is not seen on more modern aircraft, as modern powerplants have sufficient power. The 707 (have you ever watched a 707 take off roll at gross weight?) was essentially underpowered. Alex From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Nicolas E. Murat" Subject: Re: 777F References: <44k9k6$b9g@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:29 On 13 Oct 1995, BBost0325 wrote: > The 777F for FedEx may necessarity not be better over the MD-11. FedEx > already has a large DC-10 fleet and the MD-11 compliments it well with its > similar size, same manufacturer & aircraft commonality, increased range, > etc. The 777F also may not be the right size for the standard AMJ, AYY, > SAA, or AKE freight cans FedEx uses. The MD-11 seems to pack them in > nicely from what I've seen on the FedEx ramp. If the 777F is even just a > few feet wider, it wastes space on the aicraft if the cans can't be > optimally placed there. As for the 747-400F for FedEx, it will probably > never happen. They don't like their 747s now (they just don't fit their > operation) and will rid all of them in the next 5 years or so. Fed Ex also has quite a large fleet of Airbus A310's and A300-600's for the operations. Airbus is investing a lot of time and money into Fed Ex and Freighter as they are eyeing more and more Express Shipping companies. From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Future Air Navigation System (FANS) Economics versus Technology Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:33 Air Navigation Conference ‘95 Boeing Perspective on FANS David Allen Abstract Boeing took a proactive role in the development of the ARINC 622 FANS 1 package because a business case analysis indicated that it was of significant value to the airlines. Boeing also determined that airframe manufacturer involvement would add value to the development process, due to the level of integration (both internal and external to the airplane). There are several development and certification issues which should be considered when developing an integrated FANS package regardless of protocol or functional allocation. The resolution of these issues during the FANS 1 implementation can be used by future developments to reduce risk. Currently Boeing has developed and certified ARINC 622 FANS 1 for the 747-400. The 777 will have ARINC 622 FANS 1 implemented as part of the Market B package (retrofitable to Market A). Boeing is presently evaluating the direction of CNS/ATM relative to its 757/767 implementation. There is a need for an economic analysis of North Atlantic operation to help drive that decision process. The 737 currently has GPS, Company Data Link, and Required Time of Arrival functionality available. The Air Traffic Services implementations will be added when required by the market place. Why Did Boeing Develop FANS 1 All airplanes operate as a part of a larger Air Traffic Management (ATM) System. Air Traffic Management refers to the integration of ground based (airline/ATC) systems and airborne systems which control movement and spacing of airplanes. The airframe manufacturer has the responsibility to integrate their aircraft systems (automated, procedural, training, and operational) with that larger environment. However, this should not be considered a carte blanche rationale to plunge headlong into system development; especially in today’s business environment. Airline profitability is one of the keys to any airframe manufacturer’s success. In 1993, Boeing was approached by four 747-400 operators who saw a real value for ARINC 622 based FANS (Future Air Navigation System) applications in the Pacific and Asia/Europe route structure. Due to lack of airline interest, Boeing had previously suspended the Package B upgrade which initially contained an ATN (Aeronautical Telecommunications Network) based FANS package. By working closely with the regional authorities, these airlines had obtained agreements for implementation of benefits for airplanes which hosted FANS applications and used the existing ACARS network. The benefit schedule was agressive, but was supported by the regional authorities. The implementation dates for ATN were supported by a committed plan and the airlines felt that there would be a substantial delay in operational cost savings if they waited. Boeing led an effort to develop an economic model to quantify the benefit/cost relationship for all interested parties: airlines, avionics suppliers, ATC service providers, network service providers, and Boeing. This model made it clear that all parties would “win” in this endeavor; especially the airlines. This business case was enhanced by the relatively low cost of the systems upgrades (because of the use of existing systems and infrastructure) compared to the potential savings of the 747-400 on those routes. So, the FANS 1 implementation made economic sense. The next question was the level of Boeing involvement. Initially, the airlines had considered performing the systems integration function. After reviewing the significant airplane integration impact, they requested that Boeing take on the system integrator role. The airlines remained intimately involved in the development; especially in the design tradeoffs which are necessary during every system implementation. Boeing, therefore, took a proactive role in the development of 747-400 FANS 1 in partnership with the airlines because there was a clear economic benefit to the airlines and Boeing participation as the systems integrator added value to the process. This will be considered the yardstick for any future development. 747-400 FANS 1 Development Issues The implementation of ARINC 622 FANS 1 did not involve the introduction of new technology. This was consistent with the ground rule which required maximum utilization of existing equipment and infrastructure. There were few development issues relative to the technology of FANS 1; most issues were related to systems integration, both airborne and air/ground. There have always been integration requirements between Air Traffic Control and aircraft systems. These systems were “loosely coupled” and primarily mediated by the flight crew. The implementation of FANS 1 into a two-crew cockpit imposed greater integration requirements between ATC and airborne systems. These requirements centered around: Safety Analysis Functional Allocation Interoperability Cockpit Integration Operational Specification Approval The Safety Analysis process is used to identify the potential hazards of a function, classify those hazards, and allocate responsibility to member systems. This is done early in the design process to assure that all member systems reflect the appropriate criticality. Criticality is comprised of availability criteria and impact of hazardous behavior (versus planned operation). This process is difficult enough when a complex airborne system is involved and the function spans multiple systems. It becomes even more challenging when the function extends beyond the domain of the aircraft itself. Figure 1 depicts the domain of the FANS 1 ATC Data Link (ATC D/L) and Automatic Dependant Surveillance (ADS) functions. <> Figure 1 - 747-400 FANS 1 ADS/ATC D/L Functional Domain The ATC D/L function and ADS function were determined to be Essential Level functions with regards to hazardous behavior but Non-Essential with regards to availability. This means that the functions could be lost; but must not provide misleading data to the flight crew. This Safety Analysis was predicated on assumptions relative to the ATC environment (both operation and integrity). The certification requirements for 747-400 FANS 1 included FAA Notice 8110.50 which required documentation of those assumptions. These were contained in D240U123, Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives document (ATS SR&O). This safety analysis drove both the functional allocation and design of FANS 1. The tight coupling between the Flight Management function and the ADS and ATC D/L led to the determination that the applications should be hosted in the FMC. This coupling included both data availability, flight plan state information, and report trigger information. The criticality requirements for the functions removed any remaining reservations. It was decided that the ACARS (Airline Communications Addressing and Reporting System) and Satcom could remain Non-Essential given a CRC (cyclic redundancy check) and address verification which was decoded within the FMC. Interoperability was another ATM (Air Traffic Management) system integration issue. There were industry standards available which were used in the specification process, but these standards did not completely cover all integration issues. Boeing initiated an Interoperability Meeting which included airlines, ATC service providers, network service providers, civil aviation administrations, avionics suppliers, and airframe manufacturers. The additional requirements needed for interoperability were documented in the ATS SR&O. Issues which were decided in this forum included: ADS Emergency Mode Operations Addition of time stamp to ATC DL messages for use in message aging Changes to DO219 message set to support off-path operations (Not covered in standard message set) Definition of aircraft equivalents for altitude, fuel etc. Consistent source of data required) Handling and annunciation of data link system failures for development of operational procedures It is not the intent of this paper to recreate the ATS SR&O, but to indicate that these issues do exist and need to be reconciled in any FANS development. The 747-400 was designed as a two-crew cockpit. It was crucial that the addition of a function (such as ATC D/L) into this environment be consistent with the flight crew operational procedures in order to protect the two-crew operation basis. This meant that alerting had to be considered as part of the overall crew alerting and warning system and new operational procedures had to be integrated with the existing procedures. This included new visual alerts pertaining to data link availability in flight, data link equipment failure, data link status for dispatch, and a series of messages required for GPS Required Navigational Performance (RNP) capability (including aural alerts). For ATC D/L down link messages, data is automatically provided to avoid crew data entry where possible. For ATC D/L uplink messages, some data (such as route information) can be automatically loaded into the Flight Management System; again to avoid crew entry where possible. New functions in the aircraft do not add value unless the airlines can obtain Operational Specification approval via Part 121, to gain operational benefits. Because of the close coupling of the airborne and ground Air Traffic Management functions, sometimes the existing documentation which is generally provided to an airline is not sufficient. Boeing developed two new documents to support Operational Specification approval. One was the ATS SR&O which has been previously discussed. The other document was D240U126 Rev A, RNP Capability of FANS 1 FMCS Equipped 747-400. The latter document (known as the RNP document) gives the airlines data to provide to their Part 121 regulators to support GPS/RNP enroute, terminal, and approach operations. This data, which is not part of the Approved Flight Manual (AFM) or Operations Manual in that it provides analysis and data rather than procedures, was used in the generation of the AFM and Ops Manual. Certification of FANS 1 Functions on Boeing Airplanes The 747-400 FANS 1 upgrade has been certified for all engine variants. The initial certification for Rolls Royce powered airplanes was on June 20, 1995 (on a QANTAS airplane), the second certification for Pratt and Whitney powered airplanes was performed on July 19 , 1995 (on a United Airlines airplane), and the GE powered airplanes were certified on August 2, 1995 (on an Air New Zealand airplane). There are now 14 operators which have purchased approximately 170 shipsets of the FANS 1 package. The 737-300/400/500 airplanes currently have the option for installation of RNP based GPS, Company data link, and RTA. The implementation of FANS 1 ATC D/L and ADS functions are awaiting a market-driven initiation. The 777 Market A airplane was delivered with interim guidelines GPS (not RNP) and Company data link. The Market B upgrade (which is retrofitable to Market A) will provide full RNP based GPS, ATC D/L, ADS, and RTA. This is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 1996. What's Next - CNS/ATM wise Potential CNS/ATM driven system upgrades are: FANS for the 757/767 Multi Mode Receiver Classics Free Flight ATN Again, some airlines have approached Boeing with a request to participate in a FANS implementation for the 757/767. Boeing has hosted one meeting and will have another for 757/767 operators on October 10-12, 1995. The initial meeting was with a group of airlines currently specifying a particular architecture based on Buyer Furnished Equipment (BFE). Other operators have asked for a 747-400 FMC based FANS 1 solution. In either case, this will require the development of a new FMC platform to host the FANS applications or the interface to the new equipment, as well as have the capacity to incorporate ATN. Boeing is currently studying the options and working with the industry, will make a decision sometime after the October airline meeting. The resulting proposal will be presented to a third airline meeting to be hosted, by Boeing, before the year is out. Boeing is also in the process of developing a plan for a potential Multi Mode Receiver (MMR) based on industry interest. Its development will be paced by the industry progress on defining the characteristics. It is anticipated that the MMR will be accomplished in stages. ILS "lookalike" MMR Installation Development of MLS/MMR provisions ILS/MLS MMR Installation Development of GLS provisions ILS/MLS/GLS MMR Installation The goal is to have a definative plan in place to support the industry decision relative to landing systems. Another activity at Boeing is to evaluate our role relative to the incorporation of FANS functions into the classic fleet (primarily the 747 Classics). Again, this evaluation will be using the FANS 1 747-400 business case analysis methodology. This evaluation has just begun and no conclusions are available at this time. Free Flight is the responsibility of the RTCA Task Force. It is too early in the Free Flight task for Boeing to draw any conclusions as to the impact on the airborn systems. The short term Free Flight initiatives seem to be directed towards procedural improvements to the Air Traffic System. The longer range plan involves Air Traffic System changes (airborne and grounded) which will remove more of the procedural restraints. Boeing has members on that Task Force and they will be continually evaluating the results of the study with regards to current and future Boeing products. ATN Systems Incorporated has become the focal point for ATN development. The Boeing Company will be represented in this industry forum; but our final role has not been determined. The issue is not so clear as with the 747-400 FANS 1 development effort. The ATN activity also affects strategy relative to the 757/767. What is missing is the overall business case for ATN based FANS applications. The initial use of ATN will probably be in the North Atlantic, where 60% of the crossings are made by twin engine airplanes. It would seem that the basis for ATN equippage development would begin in this region. However, the following is unknown: Cost of ATN based airborne equipment Timing of ground router availability Definition of airline benefits Scheduling of airline benefits Scheduling of ground infrastructure development Status on Procedure development Boeing proposes that NATSPG become a forum for the development of an ATN based FANS application business case using a decision based, economic model. Boeing will provide the tool and the expertise for developing this model and the NATSPG attendees will be responsible for providing data. This economic (decision analysis) model provides Net Present Value for the item being modeled. Ranges of values (such as benefits, costs, and timing) can be used for the input (to indicate uncertainty) and the model will use those to determine which entities have the most effect on profitability. The model also creates a spreadsheet output which will be distributed to NATSPG data providers so they can take it home and add proprietary data. We have found this model to be extremely useful in determining if benefits outweight cost and the effect of variables (such as scheduling of benefits) on the economic outcome. This is more complex than the usual cost/benefit analysis because it allows the more precise representation of the values and inter-relationships between equipage, procedures development, and timed release of benefits. This model can be used to help remove some and bound other uncertainties associated with the development of the ATN. This model could be used to support the business case for ATN implementation on the ground or in the airborne systems by minimizing the uncertainty associated with the economic analysis. David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: htsui@direct.ca (Herbert Tsui) Subject: CAI DC10 Incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: htsui@direct.ca (Herbert Tsui) Organization: Private Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:35 In <46h64h$bgv@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca>, downs@unixg.ubc.ca (Darren Downs) writes: >During Takeoff, there was a problem with the left engine that has now >been confirmed. (PErhaps a compressor stall? Unknown. Something to do It has been confirmed that broken fan blades damaged the number 1 compressor resulting the engine to lose thrust probably causing a huge shortfall in the EPR. >The plane was at 155 Knots and about 1/2 way down the 11,000 ft runway That's the part where I still don't understand. 155kts is quite high (even given the DC10's MTOW but there are of course other factors that I don't know about) to be below V1 (the decision speed) - it seems that it's closed to Vr (rotation speed). I would believe the the Capt/FO would have executed a go-around instead of an abort unless the engines were lacking so much thrust that they knew they wouldn't reach V2 (airborne safety speed). >when the takeoff aborted. I do not know the procedures for an aborted >takeoff but I assumed that the reverse thrust was engaged and some sort >of brakes on the wheels were applied. The brakes overheated and caused 8 I am not familiar with the DC10 but on the B744 we have an auto-brake selector which is normally left in the RTO position (Rejected Take-Off), it senses an aborted take-off and will engage the auto-brakes automatically and believe me, there are very powerful. =) And of course, as you have stated, the thrust reverser would also be engaged. >veared sharply to the right. I do not know if that was because all the >tires were locked and it skidded off, or if the pilot was very smart and >vered off the runway to avoid contacting the approach lights for Runway It wasn't really up to the pilot, picture this, number 1 engine wasn't producing a lot of thrust/reverse thrust and I believe the reverse thrust mechanism on the number 2 engine was not operational leaving only number 3 engine to provide the braking power. This caused the plane to go right and the rudder padels can only do so much. >for. People are generally unaware of how many maintenance problems >planes have. A large airport can expect 2-10 delays a day for maintence No plane is ever in perfect condition, as long as it's operating under the MEL (Minimum Equipment List), there shouldn't be any problems... well, maybe with the exception to this incident regarding the thrust reverser on the number 2 engine. >problems. Preliminary reports say that the maintenance was for the engine >that had the problem on takeoff. It sounds like the problem with the fan blades happened during take-off since the Capt would have noticed metal fragments around the number 1 engine during his walk-around. Questions, questions, questions, so many questions.... =) Cheers, Herbert -- Herbert Tsui, Richmond, BC, Canada htsui@direct.ca From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aito@cap.bekkoame.or.jp (Akinori Ito) Subject: Boeing technical drawings and maintenance manual Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Asaume Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:35 I am interested in structure of jet airplanes such as Boeing 777, 747-400,etc. I wonder whether it is possible to get some sort of technical drawings on which I can see how parts work in what way to get them to fly. I also would like to know if CD-ROM maintenance manuals are available. Regards. -- Akinori Ito From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dmaher@terra.nlnet.nf.ca (dmaher) Subject: 747-400 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:36 Does anybody know where I can locate a typical take-off and landing checklist for the 747-400? Thanks in advance. From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ajvdplas@pi.net Subject: Fokker 50 climb performance Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Planet Internet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:36 Who knows what the climb-performance is of a Fokker 50 in an N-1 situation in the approach climb. The required approach-climb requirement is 2.1%, but I would like to know what the real figure is. From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: 747-400 without a winglet ! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:37 In article , sthomson@Walden.MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) wrote: >A missing winglet probably wouldn't have as much effect as carrying a >spare engine on the port wing. > >I read that JAL's 747-400's used on short domestic sectors, have the >winglets removed to save weight. When the cycles get to a certain point, >the aircraft is transferred to long haul routes, and the winglets are >re-installed to save fuel. Actually JAL's aircraft used on the shorthaul flights still have the same wing as the -200 Boeing refers to these as the 747-400 "Domestic" I saw one being built at the plant a couple of years ago just after they were put into service. BTW The effect of removing a winglet is minimal and they are easy to replace. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org WWW: http://www.io.org/~bradg/ A&P, AME (Canada), PPASEL (Canada) Leading Edge Aviation Services From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Ballentine Subject: Re: 747-400 without a winglet ! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Chile Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:37 snowd@coral.indstate.edu wrote: > >I remember reading in a copy of Boeing Airliner magazine a few years back >that the B747-400 can fly with one winglet removed, say for damage. The >fuel burn increment is about 3%, again, from what I remember reading a few >years back. Is this magazine available to non-insiders? I would appreciate anybody posting subscription information. Jim B. From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stefan Plazier Subject: Re: 747-400 Range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Western Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:38 sthomson@Walden.MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) wrote: >Qantas flew their 747-400 "Longreach", on a delivery flight, from LHR to >SYD non-stop, with maximum fuel. They used a special high density fuel, >and were towed to the runway, but landed in Australia with a couple hours >fuel remaining. >From what I recall the figure was closer to 30 minutes remaining on shutdown. Either way it was close and I understand from articles I've read that the they weren't definite about making Sydney until quite late in the flight. Stefan. "If you're not up there, you're nowhere special" From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Bryan H. Lang" Subject: Re: 747-400 without a winglet ! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California State University, Chico Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:38 On 13 Oct 1995, Nicolas E. Murat wrote: > Now, UAL A/C with only one winglet does sound unlikely. If they did lose > it somewhere, the balance would have only been affected temporarily, > until adjustments were made. Earlier 747s lost whole engines and > mananged. So a winglet can't be that bad. Several manufacturers have had > problems with losing components such as Landing Gear Doors, Service > Panels and Exterior Escape Slides in flight... I actually saw a UA 744 without a winglet at ORD one day. I inquired of the 1K desk what the story was, and he didn't believe me, so he asked a gate agent to look and find out. Sure enough, the call came back that the 744 had lost a winglet in LA (cause unspecified), had flown to ORD and was scheduled to be repaired. -BHL From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:39 In article simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) writes: >> For an emergency landing, is it ever desireable to dump excess fuel to reduce >> the possibility or extent of a fire? Would it make a difference or is fuel >> dumping only for reducing the landing weight? > >No, this is never the case. Fuel jettison capability is only for the >specific purpose of reducing the landing weight of the aircraft. "Never" is a strong word, since so many pilots have gone on record stating explicitly that they do this when facing a gear-up landing (as my earlier comments alluded to). -- 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 Oct 31 00:31:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dany@world-net.sct.fr (Jean-Marie Dany) Subject: Looking for Lufthansa pilot (B737 or A320 if possible) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: world-net.sct.fr Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:39 I'd like to contact any pilot from Lufthansa in order to check some little things about working conditions and remuneration. I am myself pilot on A320 for Air Inter (The world's best paid pilots!! as said by newspapers). Thanks for your answers From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: trpietrs@mmm.com (0009 THOMAS R. PIETRS) Subject: A320 Airbus Reliability Study Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 3M - St. Paul, Minnesota Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:39 I would like to find a good single source of incidents involving reliability of the A320 Airbus. Is there any info on the internet like a home page for the FAA? Tom trpietrs@mmm.com 612-737-6377 From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Le-Vien Subject: Re: A310, low visibility landing in Zurich, Switzerland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: slevien@eggw.demon.co.uk Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:40 In message Frank Loeffel wrote: [snip - A310 autolanding at Zurich] Instrument Landing Systemns (ILS) are Categorised as follows, with approx minima: RVR (vis) (m) cloudbase (ft) Cat I 550/600 200 Cat II 400 100 Cat IIIb 75 zero Cat IIIb is autoland. Cat IIIc is the the so-called zero/zero option (zero vis, zero cloudbase) but no one has this. We have the technology to land the aeroplane but taxying to the terminal afterwards is a different matter. With a Cat IIIb approach a typical decision height is 15ft therefore in the event of a go-around it is likely the aeroplane will touch the runway. Only the newer 'glass cockpit' aeroplanes are approved for Cat IIIb (not sure if all are at the moment?) and the crew have to qualified too; both pilots, if one is but the other not then it cannot be done. I don't know for certain if Zurich are Cat III equipped but it sounds like it. At Luton we have all Categories available on ecah runway. Exciting stuff. Done it in a simulator, you don't see a lot! -- Steve Le-Vien AFTN: EGGWZPZX Air Traffic Services Manager tel: +44 1582 395230 London Luton Airport, UK fax: +44 1582 395381 slevien@eggw.demon.co.uk My views, not LLA Ltd From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Nicolas E. Murat" Subject: Re: A310, low visibility landing in Zurich, Switzerland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:41 > > - Can airliners land at Zurich-Kloten in zero visibility? What is > the equipment at an airport required for zero visibility landings called? > Airplanes can definitely land in zero visibility in ZRH - I've actually experienced it. Once, as we entered a cloud bank during our descent we only came out of it when the landing gear touched down. It was quite a surprize really as I was looking out the window into this thick fog and generally bad weather and suddenly we were on the ground! If Airplanes couldn't land in poor/zero visibility in switzerland, then you would pretty much have to shut down the GVA and ZRH from November to March. From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dimitrios Tombros Subject: Re: A310, low visibility landing in Zurich, Switzerland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Zurich Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:41 >>- Can airliners land at Zurich-Kloten in zero visibility? What is >>the equipment at an airport required for zero visibility landings called? Equipment for 0 visibility landing is available in at least one runway at Kloten. I think this is runway 14 used for most of commercial flight landings and not used for take-offs. >>- Can an A310 land in zero visibility? What is the equipment in an airliner >>required for zero visibility landings called? > Swissair A310s, MD-11s and I think some A320s and MD-90s are equipped for 0-visibility landings. -- Dimitrios Tombros Database Technology Research Group e-mail: tombros@ifi.unizh.ch Computer Science Department http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/groups/dbtg/dbtg.html University of Zurich From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ajvdplas@pi.net Subject: Re: A310, low visibility landing in Zurich, Switzerland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Planet Internet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:42 In article , writes: > My parents flew from Cyprus to Zurich-Kloten, Switzerland, in a Cyprus > Airlines Airbus A310. In Kloten, the weather was foggy with only a few > patches of ground visible from the air. > > Well, my parents told me about a few things that the captain did: > - The captain announced that he wouldn't anticipate a problem due to the > low visibility. My parents thought that this was a rather strange > announcment. ... Hi, aircraft are capable of landing with zero visibility and zero cloudbase. This is called a CAT III-approach. The aircraft, crew and aerodrome has to be qualified for that. Schiphols Amsterdam is capable of that. With a CAT III-appraoch the auto-pilot land the plane. Also if the aircraft and aerodrome is equped with the right tools the aircraft taxies itself of the runway. You don't them need any visibility. If the A310 and the pilot or aerodrome was capable of a CAT III/autoland I don't know. To give you my honest opinion: Your parents are worrying to much. They should just sit back and relax and let the pilot fly the airplane. In my opinion people do always have an opinion about an airline or aircraft or pilot without knowing the fine details. If the pilot did not operate safely his aircraft and made mistakes he would probably got fired. That is the way it works. Tip: Next time when you fly, ask the stewardess if you can have a look in the cockpit and ask the pilots their opinion. P.S.: I hope your parents had a nice holiday... regards.. From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines A310 replacement References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Technology Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:42 In article , chuanga@wis.com (Andrew Chuang) wrote: ... > According to Singapore's newspaper (Strait Times), Boeing felt that it > had an even chance against Airbus in the race to win Singapore Airlines' > $5 billion order of 33 twins. ... > Personally, I think B777-300 will be a big hit in Asia. It'll be foolish > for SIA to overlook the B777. I have wondered how the French nuclear testing in the South Pacific will affect the relative sales of Boeing/MD and Airbus airplanes. In those cases where there is government funding involved, there may be the desire to make a political statement (or at least not look like the government is supporting the French at this time). I'll bet it is a factor.... Ken -- Ken Hoyme Staff Scientist Honeywell Technology Center 3660 Technology Drive Minneapolis, MN 55418 From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: maddaus@gte.com (John S. Maddaus) Subject: UA 727s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GTE Labs Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:42 For what its worth, the controller at Boston Center asked the UA pilot of our 727 this past Monday how long UA would be flying 727s. The pilot answered that UA was going to install hush kits and fly them for another 10 years. Both he and the controller remarked that it would get them to retirement. Personally that makes me happy cause I like the dang things. John S. Maddaus jmaddaus@gte.com From kls Tue Oct 31 00:31:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Robert M. Sherry" Subject: Oddball 727 variants? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 00:31:43 I have a picture of a United 727-222 in an airline markings book that very clearly shows a third cabin door on the right side of the aircraft, in about the same location as the galley door on the -100. It appears to be of a type similar to the 'hatrack' doors on the 707 and DC-8. This is the only 727 I've ever seen with one of these doors. Why would a 727 have one of these? Perhaps as part of a provision for very high density seating layouts? For what it's worth, the plane was registered N7625U, and according to my book was c/n 19542, built in 1968. The photo was taken on a pre-delivery test flight in 1968. If any of you know what's up here I'd love to know... TIA, Rob -- rms sherryr@a.cs.okstate.edu From kls Tue Oct 31 13:30:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu (Peter Hollingsworth) Subject: Re: ValuJet Order: What's Difference MD-95 and DC9-50? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 13:30:13 In article , wjcandee@netcom.com (Bill Candee) wrote: > Now that ValuJet has ordered the MD-95 with RR/BMW engines > (Wall St. Journal, today), I am wondering how good a decision this is > on their part. I am happy to see Douglas get some work, but isn't the > MD-95 really just a DC9-50 (DC-9 wing, long fuselage).... > > Does anybody know whether Douglas has done anything to make the > MD-95 a well-handling plane? I usually feel safer when I know that the > pilot doesn't have to fight the plane (a sparsely-loaded 757 is a blast > to fly in, for example, because it is so overpowered and maneuverable). The MD-95 is really quite different, from the DC-9-50. The 95 I nbeilieve is modeled after the DC-9-32. However, it is more closely related to the MD-90 than anything else. Aside from more composits, more powerful engines, a flight deck designed of of the MD-88's, and new landing gear, the desing goes back to the DC-9-30. Parts commonality though is only between 30 and 50% from my knowledge. MCDAC can build some things a little better now than the could in the 1960's, well everybody can. -- I am The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor. Destroyer of Worlds, Eliminator of populations, And the bane of Humanity. gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1630 From kls Tue Oct 31 13:30:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: tskono@ucdavis.edu (Timothy Kono) Subject: Re: Are commuter aircrafts really that disliked ? References: <45mb1j$bl5@canyon.sr.hp.com> <45n0oe$d9n@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com> <45p2e5$l1c@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: University of California, Davis Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 13:30:14 Robert Ashcroft (rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu) wrote: : In article <45n0oe$d9n@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com>, : Michael Coch wrote: : >There are pros and cons to everything. According to my pilot friends, you : >don't want to be in a light jet during landing if there's wind shear -- : >takes a little too long for the engines to spool up to counter the shear. : Is this true? I'm just wondering but, are lighter jets more likely to be unstable during such things as wind sheer? Also, would faster and more powerful engines counter the sheer much faster and better? I just want to know. SAMURAI From kls Tue Oct 31 13:30:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: sdixon4548@aol.com (SDixon4548) Subject: Re: ValuJet Order: What's Difference MD-95 and DC9-50? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: sdixon4548@aol.com (SDixon4548) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 13:30:14 wjcandee@netcom.com writes: > Now that ValuJet has ordered the MD-95, I am wondering how good a > decision this is on their part....isn't the MD-95 just a DC9-50?... > An Austrian Airlines captain explained here recently that the DC9-50 > was a crutty plane to fly... I would like to add to his question: If the DC9-50 was a bad plane, has the newer version of the DC-9 been substantially improved (MD-80)? Also, what is the difference between the MD-80 and the MD-90, or for that matter, the MD-83 that TWA has been adding to its fleet recently? Thanks for your information. Scott From kls Tue Oct 31 13:36:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ValuJet Order: What's Difference MD-95 and DC9-50? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 13:36:20 >what is the difference between the MD-80 and the MD-90, or for that >matter, the MD-83 that TWA has been adding to its fleet recently? I'll admit to being less familiar with the myriad DC-8 and DC-9 variations than I am with the Boeing and Airbus lines, but I think I can come pretty close, despite some inconsistent references. Here's a table with all the basic numbers, followed by some details. Seating is for a typical, mixed-class configuration and maximum in "sardine class". MGTOW and engine choice are likewise for a typical aircraft, and thrust is per engine. Weights and thrust are in pounds, range is in miles. model seats w.span length MGTOW engines thrust range ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------- ------ ----- DC-9-31 103-110 93'5" 119'5" 98,000 JT8D-7 14,000 1,340 DC-9-32 103-110 93'5" 119'5" 108,000 JT8D-11 15,000 DC-9-51 122-135 93'5" 133'7" 121,000 JT8D-17 16,000 1,260 MD-81 142-155 107'10" 147'10" 140,000 JT8D-209 18,500 1,630 MD-82 142-155 107'10" 147'10" 149,500 JT8D-217 20,000 2,176 MD-83 142-155 107'10" 147'10" 160,000 JT8D-219 21,000 2,618 MD-87 -130 107'10" 119'1" 125,000 JT8D-217 20,000 2,405 MD-88 142-155 107'10" 147'10" 149,500 JT8D-217 20,000 2,176 MD-90-30 153-172 107'10" 152'7" 156,000 V2525-D5 25,000 2,610 MD-95-30 104-115 93'4" 122'5" 114,000 BR715 18,500 1,547 First, an MD-81 is properly a DC-9-81 since that's what's shown on the certificate. MD-81 is just a marketing name. In contrast, the certificate for the MD-88 shows it as such, though it's still a DC-9 derivative. For the -82 and -83, as I recall, the certificate still shows DC-9-82 (83) but MD-82 (83) is a legal alias. Finally, the MD-90 is considered a new type -- the FAA decided that at some point the plane had grown beyond being a DC-9. Picking the MD-90 as the break was somewhat arbitrary, but it was clearly no longer a DC-9 in their view. The DC-9-81 (aka MD-81) grew out of the DC-9-50, with a 14' 3" fuselage stretch and a 14' 5" increase in wingspan. New JT8D-200 series engines, a significant improvement over the older JT8Ds, provided from 2,500 to 5,000 lbs of additional thrust per engine (up to 21,000 lbs each) and allowed an increase in MGTOW of 19,000 lbs to 140,000 lbs. The MD-82 uses the higher thrust engines and a slight MGTOW increase (149,500 lbs) for greater range and better hot-and-high performance. With a glass cockpit and other interior improvements, the MD-82 became the MD-88. The MD-83 has structural improvements, allowing a 160,000 lbs MGTOW, and greater fuel capacity, which combine to provide significantly greater range of around 2,600 miles, vs. 1,600 for the MD-81. The MD-87 is a shortened version, with a fuselage 4 inches shorter than the DC-9-31, but the same wing and weights as the MD-81. The heavier engines, as compared to the DC-9-31, mean the CG and thus the wings are further back. Consequently, the rear doors were eliminated and the tail height was increased. The MD-90 started out as a re-engined and stretched MD-80. The model currently in production is the MD-90-30, the middle-sized version of three MD-90 models originally defined. It uses the MD-83 fuselage, stretched with a 57 inch plug ahead of the wing to balance the heavier V2500-series engines, and a strengthened MD-83 wing. The taller tail from the MD-87 is used, and the flight deck is based on that of the MD-88. At 156,000 lbs, MGTOW is only slightly shy of the MD-83. The V2525-D5 engines, identical except for packaging and accessories to the V2500-A1 offered on the A320, provides 25,000 lbs of thrust for normal operations, with a cockpit-selectable boost to 28,000 lbs for hot-and-high operations. McDonnell Douglas claims the MD-90 is the quietest large jetliner, and the only one ready for proposed Stage 4 noise requirements. Finally, the MD-90 incorporates a number of other improvements, ranging from improved brakes to a vacuum lavatory system with single-point servicing. The MD-95 returns to the wing of the DC-9-30 and -50. Fuselage length is a bit greater than the DC-9-30 -- some info I have from MD claims 122' 5.4" (a 3' stretch) but with a seat count that's significantly lower than the 129 claimed for ValuJet's order. That may be due to tighter pitch and minimal galley space on the VJ aircraft. Two flight deck designs were offered, a basic version similar to the MD-80/90 and an advanced version with a small number of large flight displays, providing a "clean" look not unlike the new Airbus products or the 777. (Presumably ValuJet selected the basic design though the advanced one is probably still available as an option for other customers.) The BMW Rolls-Royce BR715 engine, rated at 18,500 to 21,000 lbs of thrust, was selected by ValuJet. Pratt and Whitney's proposed MTFE (Mid Thrust Family Engine) was also offered prior to launch, but with the launch order using the BR715 all MD-95s will use that engine. Finally, many of the MD-90's improvements (brakes, lavatory, etc.) are incorporated in the MD-95. -- 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 Oct 31 13:36:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner ) Subject: Re: What's Difference MD-95 and DC9-50? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 13:36:21 >Isn't the MD-95 really just a DC9-50 (DC-9 wing, long fuselage)? >Does anybody know whether Douglas has done anything to make the >MD-95 a well-handling plane? Well, of course, the MD95 is still on the drawing boards, but it's intended to more or less replace the old DC-9-30s that are the current plane of choice for ValueJet. Passenger capacity is said to be c. 129 in single class, about equivalent to a -30. I expect it will have the "glass" cockpit now found on the MD88s and MD90s, and it may have an all new wing (but that's pure speculation on my part). In any case, it isn't going to fly for a few more years, but I'm sure Douglas will make it easy and comfortable to fly. -- Neil - nw@ix.netcom.com From kls Tue Oct 31 13:36:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: iahsrco@aol.com (IAHSRCO) Subject: Re: ValuJet Order: What's Difference MD-95 a References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: iahsrco@aol.com (IAHSRCO) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Oct 95 13:36:21 wjcandee.......I'm not that familiar with the MD-95. but if it is anything like the MD-80, it will handle pretty well. I've never flown on the DC-9-50 but i know pilots that have and not one liked it. It is terribly underpowered, doesn't like hot and high airports, or even hot for that matter. Continental got 4 from Eastern and only kept them for about 6 months if that long. I'm not sure what ValuJet would order to go along with their DC-9 fleet but sooner or later they will have to be replaced. It makes some sense to keep the same type of aircraft especially for a carrier the size of ValuJet. IAHSRCO From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: B777 order list Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:29 (No, the -100 has not been launched. I'm only anticipating it.) GE P&W R-R Airline 100 200 300 Opt 100 200 300 Opt 100 200 300 Opt United 34 34 British 15 15 Thai Int'l 8 All Nippon 18 10 7 Emirates 7 7 Japan 10 5 10 Lauda 4 0 EuralAir 2 0 Cathay Pacific 4 7 11 ILFC 6 2 China Southern 6 0 Japan Air System 7 0 Continental 5 5 Korean Air 4 4 8 Saudia 23 0 Total 61 22 73 19 59 19 7 18 Orders w/ undecided powerplant Airline 100 200 300 Opt EgyptAir 3 0 Total 3 0 Grand total Firm Option 777-100 0 777-200 156 99 777-300 26 182 99 Letters of Intent Airline 100 200 300 Opt Thai Int'l 6 2 Korean Air 4 -4 China Airlines 4 0 EVA Airways 4 4 Air China 10 Total 18 10 2 Grand total Grand total Firm Option 777-100 0 777-200 174 101 777-300 36 210 101 Potential customers: Air-India, Malaysia, Qantas, Singapore, South Africa, Virgin Atlantic, KLM, American, Delta, LOT Related news: 1. British Airways has yet to receive the GE90-powered B777. I read that November 12 was a possible delivery date. However, according to a British paper (I believe it's the Guardian), the delay could be as long as four months. China Southern was also due to take delivery of its first GE90-powered B777. 2. All Nippon received its first PW4084-powered B777 in October. It will be placed into domestic service in December. 3. Cathay Pacific seems to have replaced Thai International as the first operator to receive the Trent 800-powered B777 from Boeing early next year. 4. It seems Boeing is ready to launch the 777-100X next year and in service by 1999. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Aircraft Order Update (Nov 1, 95) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:30 *** 1995 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Nov 1, 95) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| 1| CFMI | 30 4 |25 42 14 4 | | s| GEAE | | 8 8 23 | 6 | t| IAE | 8 6 | | 29 | | P&W | 2 | 4 4 4 3 | 7 | H| R-R | | 6 3 | | a|Unknown| 2 10 | 2 | | l|_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| f|Subtot | 4 30 8 16 0 4 |25 42 14 4 14 10 15 26 0 | 36 6 | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N| JL | | 5P| | N| SK | | 6 | | N| Turkmenistan | 2U | | N| 5J | | | 50B | N| HY | | 1U 2U | | N| SQ | | 1P | | N| Unknown(KA?) 1 | 1P | | | LH | 1 | 4G | | | NH | | 10P| | | BR | | | 6I | | MS | | 3U | | | Itochu (for LG) | 2 | | | SK | | | 2I | | S'pore Aircraft | 3G | | | ILFC | | 40 11 3 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 1 5 |27 88 25 7 19 13 20 29 15 | 94 6 | | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 6 4 ) | B O E I N G ( 2 4 3 ) |MD(100)| Letters of Intent |1st hlf| | 8 8 10 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | CA | | 5 10 | | | HV | | 8 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 1 5 |27 88 25 23 14 13 20 47 25 | 94 6 | | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 6 4 ) | B O E I N G ( 2 9 4 ) |MD(100)| 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/R-R, 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). 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 HY - Uzbekistan IW - AOM French IY - Yemenia JL - Japan AL KA - DragonAir 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 SQ - Singapore SV - Saudia TG - Thai Int'l TR - Transbrasil UA - United UX - Air Europa VP - VASP YP - Aero Llyod 3Q - Yunnan(China) 5J - ValuJet 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 From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: PW JT-8D Cruise Parameters for MD88 and B-727 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: 03 Nov 95 02:51:31 Lot's of people ask for this kind of information so here's a list of engine parameters for a B727 and an MD88 at cruise. >>727-200 with JT8D-15A engines Gross Wt - 147,000 IAS - 300 Altitude - 33,000 Mach - .84 Ram Air Temp - minus 14 Static Air Temp - minus 17 Stab Units - plus 10 EPR - 1990/2000/1990 N1 - 88.8/87.5/87.0 EGT - 480/480/470 Fuel Flow - 3500/3300/3300 N2 - 87.8/87.6/88.8 Oil Temp - 86/92/95 Oil Press - 47/48/45 >>MD88 with JT8D-219 engines Gross Wt - 110,000 IAS - 309 Altitude - 28,000 Mach - .782 Ram Air Temp - minus 05 Static Air Temp - minus 32 Stab Units - plus 03 EPR - 1669/1670 N1 - 80.8/81.3 EGT - 410/417 Fuel Flow - 3550/3600 N2 - 88.0/88.7 Oil Temp - 86/86 Oil Press - 48/48 From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: richard@rmit.edu.au (Richard A. Muirden) Subject: Re: 747-400 without a winglet ! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:31 Jim Ballentine writes: >>I remember reading in a copy of Boeing Airliner magazine a few years back >>that the B747-400 can fly with one winglet removed, say for damage. The >>fuel burn increment is about 3%, again, from what I remember reading a few >>years back. >Is this magazine available to non-insiders? I would appreciate anybody >posting subscription information. I think so. I remember getting one all about the 777 earlier this year as a "anonymous" pressie from a student here who aparently worked for Ansett or Qantas, and got a hold of it (cool!). An interesting magazine. I think it said it was $35/yr subscriptions but I'm unsure if you have to be a Boeing customer to get it or not. I'll try and fish it out and find the details. -richard -- Richard A. Muirden, Sys. Admin |Fan of Shostakovich, "Star Trek" and BOEING! Mailto: richard@rmit.EDU.AU |Fly the Friendly Skies of United Airlines ! Phone: (+61 3) 9660 3814 |I created alt.fan.shostakovich! Fly: UA,AN,WN http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard |Can *YOU* beat my 119 Shost CD's? :-) * 1995: Remembering 20 years since the death of Shostakovich (1906-75) * From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jsummers@hooked.net (Jack Summers) Subject: Re: Oddball 727 variants? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hooked Online Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:31 In article , "Robert M. Sherry" says: > >I have a picture of a United 727-222 in an airline markings book that very >clearly shows a third cabin door on the right side of the aircraft, in about >the same location as the galley door on the -100. It appears to be of a type >similar to the 'hatrack' doors on the 707 and DC-8. This is the only 727 I've >ever seen with one of these doors. Why would a 727 have one of these? Perhaps >as part of a provision for very high density seating layouts? In the early versions of the 727-200's a "type 1" exit was installed just forward of the wings. They were equiped with slides and you are right this was installed for high density applactions. United upon takeing delivery of these aircraft deactived the door and painted over the door markings. On later versions (UAL 727-222A) the door was an option that UAL did not pick up. Hope this helps, Jack Summers jsummers@hooked.net From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: Oddball 727 variants? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:32 In article , Robert M. Sherry wrote: >I have a picture of a United 727-222 in an airline markings book that very >clearly shows a third cabin door on the right side of the aircraft, in about >the same location as the galley door on the -100. It appears to be of a type >similar to the 'hatrack' doors on the 707 and DC-8. This is the only 727 I've >ever seen with one of these doors. Why would a 727 have one of these? Perhaps >as part of a provision for very high density seating layouts? There is a photo of a similar 727 in "Jetliners, USA" - described as "this aircraft had bassed through Braniff, Alaska and McClain Airlines' hands." The right hand side is shown, with the two overwing exits in the normal place, and a right hand side passenger door located four window units in front of the forward overwing exit. There are 14 windows in front of this door, but no forward door. This is in contrast to a photo of an Eastern 727-200 where the right hand side layout goes : 2 windows, rear door, 16 windows, rear overwing exit, 2 windows, front overwing exit, 22 windows, front door. -tim From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Oddball 727 variants? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:32 >There is a photo of a similar 727 in "Jetliners, USA" - described as >"this aircraft had bassed through Braniff, Alaska and McClain Airlines' >hands." The right hand side is shown, with the two overwing exits >in the normal place, and a right hand side passenger door located >four window units in front of the forward overwing exit. There >are 14 windows in front of this door, but no forward door. That describes the standard configuration for a 727-100. The original question was about a -200 model, matching your later description of an Eastern 727-200 except with an additional full (or nearly full) door on *both* sides in roughly the position where the -100 has its only full-sized right door. That's a total of three large exits per side, where a normal -200 only has two and a -100 has but one. (All three variants also have a pair of overwing exits per side.) I was puzzled by the oddball UA config for a long time as well. From what I can tell, all of UA's non-Advanced -200s had them, and none of the Advanced models had them. If that's correct, none are left in service. -- 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 Nov 3 02:51:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Oddball 727 variants? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:32 Rob, The original UA 727-222 order specified this emergency exit configuration, and as far as I know, they're the only ones that ever bought it. I think the door is the same as the door on the 707-320B/C that is aft of the wings. It goes all the way to floor level and up to just above the windows. They're all deactivated at this point, if UA still has any of the airplanes. Not sure how many were built thus, but I suspect it was only UA's first batch. Jennings From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Michael Carley Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:32 Colin Povey writes: >I was wondering if you know why the Avro RJ rejional jets are >so popular. I like the planes myself, but I thought that the >four engines would dramaticially increase the cost of the planes. Probably because the four engines make passengers feel more secure. -- "You got your highbrow funk, you got your lowbrow funk, you even got a little bit of your pee-wee, pow-wow funk" (Dr. John) Michael Carley, Mech. Eng., TCD, IRELAND. m.carley@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie Home page From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bylsma@unixg.ubc.ca (Dieder Bylsma) Subject: Any info on CP DC-10 incident @ YVR Oct 19? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of British Columbia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:32 Recently we had a rather dramatic aborted take-off in Vancouver involving a Canadian Airlines DC-10 taking off West-bound and being forced to abort. It over-ran the runway and ended up with a collapsed nose gear (in rather sodden ground) and definitely with a load of surprised and shocked passengers. Apparently also a runway field worker was taken to hospital for treatment of severe shock as the DC-10 went carreening off the runway towards him(f-shaped skid marks apparent from helicopter view) and scared the daylights out him...fancy that! Anyhow, any info on what caused this incident to occur? Newspaper speculation is particularly uninformative, ranging from 'faulty nose gear' to 'engine-fire'... -- -- bylsma@unixg.ubc.ca From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: AA Landing Lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:33 In article , kcjarvis@tribeca.ios.com,[Kenny.Jarvis] writes: > Is it policy for American Airline heavy jets to land without landing lights > when there are low ceilings. While watching planes at JFK today, I noticed > all American Airlines 767 and A300 landed with no landing lights. The ceiling > was 500 overcast. All other 767 and A300 landed with landing lights on. > Anyone have an idea?? I've got some ideas, but none relate to any AA operational policies, which I'm not aware of. When flying through low scud, the landing light reflecting off the clouds can be extremely disorienting to the pilot. The reflections can also make the runway environment harder to find. If the aircraft is flying a coupled approach, the pilot may opt to not hand fly it at all, and using visual cues from the runway lights and the radio altimeter may simply supervise the autopilot all the way to flare and rollout. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ddomino@mitre.org (David A. Domino) Subject: Re: AA Landing Lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MITRE Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:33 In article , kcjarvis@tribeca.ios.com,[Kenny.Jarvis] wrote: > Is it policy for American Airline heavy jets to land without landing lights > when there are low ceilings. While watching planes at JFK today, I noticed > all American Airlines 767 and A300 landed with no landing lights. The ceiling > was 500 overcast. All other 767 and A300 landed with landing lights on. > Anyone have an idea?? You don't say whether you were observing during the day or at night, but as a matter of preference, if not policy, some pilots prefer landing lights off at night to improve the visual acquisition of the runway environment. The backscatter of light through the fog/cloud will reduce the contrast with approach lighting, and other visual landing aids. the fact that all AA arrivals used the technique certainly suggests that policy might play a role, but airlines also develop cultural quirks that go beyond policy. Use of lights is usually an ops policy matter.. -- David A. Domino MITRE Corporation ddomino@mitre.org (703)883-3695 My opinions, not MITRE's. From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: Airbus/Boeing pilot-aircraft interface paradigms. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Organization: University of Manchester Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:33 Hi, I know that this subject has been coveredbefore in this group, but I'd be interested in gathering the opinions of pilots and design engineers about the different strategies adopted by Airbus and Boeing concerning the pilot-aircraft interface. As I understand it, Boeing seems to be more 'pilot-centred' in its approach, while Airbus is more '(design) engineer-oriented'. Thus Boeing generally grants the pilot ultimate authority, while Airbus often allows the computer to over-ride the pilot. Also, Boeing provides less ambiguous instrument feedback than Airbus, eg the auto-throttle levers moves in a Boeing aircraft, not in an Airbus. Is this correct? I'm neither a pilot nor an engineer (it probably shows), but am interested in the evolution of design paradigms. I'd be very grateful for any feedback. Cheers, Alain Deckers Policy Research in Engineering, Science and Technology University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Noise Restriction stages ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:33 I suspect that this is a FAQ, but I'm not finding the answer through a Lycos search... Can someone please point me to information about the USA commercial aviation Noise Restrictions (Stage 1, 2, 3)? Specifically, when they take effect, their definitions (in brief), and a list of common engines/aircraft which meet/fail to meet the different stages. Thanks! -- 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 Fri Nov 3 02:51:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Passenger O2 trivia (was: Cabin environment on long haul...) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:34 >In article Steve Lacker writes: > Oxygen (as in bottled O2) is only fed to the drop-down masks in an > emergency, I believe. Interestingly, widebody and newer narrow body aircraft use perchlorate candles to provide emergency oxygen to the passenger masks. (A similar system provides emergency O2 on submarines.) Oxygen bottles are much heavier and require much more maintenance compared with the chemical oxygen system. ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: beward@uci.edu (Brad Ward) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: <45tmsk$a44@maple.enet.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Irvine Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:34 noise abatement procedures do affect > things like stated above (climb/departure procedures). The classic example being John Wayne in Orange County (SNA). Taking off there is pretty fun.. a very steep initial climb, a little levelling off and a cut in the power. It's also interesting to watch from the ground.. I once saw an America West 737 take it REALLY steep. Didn't last very long at that angle, the captain brought the nose down sooner and faster than normal, which I'm sure felt really good to the passengers..=) Funny thing about all the extra work to quiet things down, the planes are still pretty noisy in Newport Beach (under the flight path). From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: skyesis@portal.com Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServ News Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:34 In article , writes: > In my personal opinion, I think they should bring back the pure jet! > --- > Daniel Wilder > dpw@dircon.co.uk I still fly a Lear 25 over here in the U.S.A. It will shake the squirrles out of the trees if you leave the throttles up. Almost every takeoff I make in this type is Takeoff Power to 1500 feet AGL and then Flaps up, Power to 88%, pitch for 500 fpm ROC with the Airspeed falling where it may. This keeps most of the noise inside the airport boundary. This procedure requires a minimum of 25 degrees nose up (until 1500 feet) so you have to brief the passengers on what to expect lest their pacemakers get a sever stroking. - Bill From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: skyesis@portal.com Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServ News Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:34 In article , writes: > chris and john, > As i learned in class the other day, > airliner climb rates are heavily dictated > by local noise regulations....you may want to > climb very very steeply after liftoff and then as you > pass over the wealthy subdivision in your flight path > you will throttle back and crawl along so you don't > disturb the taxpayers. > vin Actually, I do a noise abatement departure in the Lear 25 every time unless ATC tells me specifically to "Expedite Climb". The monetary status of the landowners below is irrelevant. - Bill From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: skyesis@portal.com 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: InterServ News Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:35 In article , writes: > The reason we stay high for as long as possible, and decend at > idle power, is primarily fuel consumption. There are instances where it's > not practical to do this, but it's desired whenever possible. You mean like stating down from FL410 over Richmond when landing in the New York Area? The North East Plan Sux! - Bill From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: fredch@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Fred Christiansen) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: <45tmsk$a44@maple.enet.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: Hewlett Packard, Fort Collins, Colorado Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:35 Mark Krotz (mkrotz@qrz.com) wrote: > Another interesting case is Denver. Everyone > whined about noise around Stapelton, so the city/county spent > millions of dollars sound proofing peoples homes. Now they > move the airport out of town, and everyone bitches cause they > have to drive too far to get to the airport. Oh, and "they" are complaining about the noise out of DIA, too. -- Fred Christiansen, Canajan (Eh?) and HP-ite Email: fredch@fc.hp.com From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: acampane@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: <45tmsk$a44@maple.enet.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:35 In article <45tmsk$a44@maple.enet.net> mkrotz@qrz.com (Mark Krotz) writes: >>>As i learned in class the other day, >>>airliner climb rates are heavily dictated >>>by local noise regulations....you may want to >Well, its true. I don't understand these idiots who build a >house under the approach/arrival path to airports, and then >bitch about airplane noise! What the hell do they expect. A The problem is that the house is not properly insulated against overflight noise. I am an acoustical consultant, and I routinely advise architects and owners on the proper method of doing so. When done properly, overflight noise (interior to the house) is not a problem. With sensible features (masonry walls and/or dual walls/windows/roof, all-season air-conditioning), the house is quite habitable. I designed the isolation package for the Radisson Hotel at Port Columbus (CMH), 6,000 feet west of RY 10L/27R on the extended centerline. That Radisson has the highest % occupancy rate for the Radisson chain in Ohio. That % is high because of location (handy to airport). So it can be done if one puts their mind to it. What is missing for ALL cities is a Municipal building permit ordinance MO which demands force all new-builds to "do it right" for noise isolation from the get-go. >good example is Phoenix Sky Harbor. Its been there since the >late '10s or early '20s, much longer than almost any housing in >the area. Same deal with Mesa, AZ Falcon Field. It's been >there since the Big One, it was an RAF aux training base. Then >some morons build houses around it in the orange groves and put >a trailer park across the road, and now they bitch about the Trailer parks near airports are a no-no since these structures are very thin and the odds are overwhelming that they will have *no* significant insulation against external noise. >airplane noise! Another interesting case is Denver. Everyone >whined about noise around Stapelton, so the city/county spent >millions of dollars sound proofing peoples homes. Now they >move the airport out of town, and everyone bitches cause they >have to drive too far to get to the airport. Bottom line: >If you don't want to hear airplane noise, don't live by the >airport! And oh yes, noise abatement procedures do affect >things like stated above (climb/departure procedures). Or hire an acoustical consultant to be at the side of your architect when he designs the exterior shell of your house. The address of the National Council of Acoustical Consultants (NCAC) is: NCAC / 66 Morris Ave, PO Box 359 / Springfield, NJ. 201-379-1100 / FAX=201-564-7480. They can tell you who is the consultant closest to you. You can also ask me for guidance any time: Ang. Campanella, 614-876-5108 FAX=614-771-8740. Cheers and Happy Landings! Ang. (I own a Mooney 201, a quiet (overflight noise) airplane). /\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Sound Technology /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ljansch@ix.netcom.com (Larry Jansch) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: <45tmsk$a44@maple.enet.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:36 In <45tmsk$a44@maple.enet.net> mkrotz@qrz.com (Mark Krotz) writes: > >I don't understand these idiots who build a house under the >approach/arrival path to airports, and then bitch about airplane >noise! A similar thing happened at RDU. Developers built a pile of homes directly under the approach for the major runway, 23R. The local rag (the Raleigh News & Observer) ran a string of articles sympathetic to those pinheads who bought the houses without considering that 1) jet aircraft were flying directly overhead and 2) the airport was expanding its capacity. Lawsuits were filed against the airport operating authority, the homewoners prevailed and a good portion of the damages were passed along to the major tenant, AA, who eventually pulled out 90% of their service. That was not the principal reason for the pullout, but it didn't help matters any. Airports tend to expand, not shrink, or even stay the same size for that matters. > >I love airplane noise! > Ditto, again. I live under the northern approaches to DFW and it sounds wonderful! -Larry From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: iahsrco@aol.com (IAHSRCO) Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners References: <45tmsk$a44@maple.enet.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: iahsrco@aol.com (IAHSRCO) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:36 mark......you are correct that in some cities climb rates are defined by noise abatement policies. Orange County (SNA) is a classic example. First...only Stage 3 aircraft are allowed to operate there. (MD-80, B737-300/400/500, B757) and even then they must use what is called cut-back after take-off. It involves a very high climb rate followed by reducing thrust drastically. In the event of an engine failure, things are going to get very interesting very fast. Also you are correct that in virtually all cities, the airport was there before the houses. Hopefully the new airport in Denver will solve that problem. But most often climb rates are dictated by obstacles and/or terrain, temperature, and last but not least the weight of the aircraft. IAHSRCO From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Addison Schonland Subject: Re: Water injection ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIC Research, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:36 If I am not mistaken, water injection was used by South African Airways on their RR Conway powered 707s. JNB is very hot and very high. I understand that Boeing has also recommended water injection for 777s they are trying to sell SAA. To meet SAA's requirements, Boeing apparently has recommended a "thrust bump" using the injection. Needless to say, SAA maintenance engineers are not thrilled with the prospect of the heavy wear this will bring about. -- Best Regards, Addison Schonland - Phone (619) 637-4000 Fax (619) 637-4040 From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: et41@umail.umd.edu (Ed Thierbach) Subject: Re: Water injection ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Educational Technology Center, University of Maryland Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:36 In article , gallope@admin.curtin.edu.au wrote: > Water Injection was certainly no friend of the engines, and put a lot > of extra strain on them. But it worked!. I seem to remember that the old Nord 262 turboprop had a problem with its engines coming apart that was related to water injection. Anyone have the scoop on that? -- Ed Thierbach, Network Coordinator Email: et41@umail.umd.edu Educational Technology Center Voice: (301) 405-3613 0307 Benjamin, Univ. of Maryland Fax: (301) 314-9278 College Park, MD 20742 http://www.wam.umd.edu/~ethierba From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jcbowman@aol.com (JCBowman) Subject: Re: Water injection ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jcbowman@aol.com (JCBowman) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:36 >"water injection" actually refers to a solution of water and methanol, >injected in a finely atomized spray into the engine's intake zone. This >helps performance in the following way: The atomized spray evaporates >immediately, absorbing heat (585/cal/gm3) and effectively lowering the >temperature of intake air. Water injection also adds mass to the flow. The change in momentum will produce an added thrust. Jason (jcbowman@aol.com) From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: 727 with larger tail-top engine? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:37 I flew in to Jackson, Mississippi several times recently, and each time I saw a Federal Express or UPS (I don't recall which) 727 which appeared to have a slightly larger tail-top engine. That is, the engine on top of the tail seemed to have a larger inlet (the front few feet of the engine) and then the rest of the cylinder was slightly smaller. Am I imagining this, or has FedEx/UPS/whoever modified some 727's such that the engine casings are different sizes from e.g. Delta's 727's which don't have that larger leading edge of the tail-top engine? Thanks -- 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 Fri Nov 3 02:51:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: 727 with larger tail-top engine? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:37 >I flew in to Jackson, Mississippi several times recently, and >each time I saw a Federal Express or UPS (I don't recall which) >727 which appeared to have a slightly larger tail-top engine. Sounds like one of the UPS 727-100s re-engined by Dee Howard with Rolls-Royce Tay 651 engines. About half of their -100s have been done, with the remainder being done in fairly short order. (All of their -200s still have the original JT8Ds. FedEx still has JT8Ds on all their 727s.) -- 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 Nov 3 02:51:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: L-1011 Homepage 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: 03 Nov 95 02:51:37 This is to announce the launch of the L-1011 homepage. Here you'll find facts and figures, dimensions, photos, the beginnings of a fleet list ( if you know the where abouts of any airplane that's not on the list, please let me know) and more as I work on the page. You can find it at: http://users.aol.com/tristar500/l1011/ Hope you like it and find it useful. Dave "If it ain't a TriStar, I ain't going" Davidson From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: skyesis@portal.com Subject: Re: Are commuter aircrafts really that disliked ? References: <45p2e5$l1c@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServ News Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:37 In article <45p2e5$l1c@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>, writes: > > In article <45n0oe$d9n@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com>, > Michael Coch wrote: > >On Oct 13, 1995 14:06:25 in article >disliked ?>, 'lous@sr.hp.com (Lou Salz)' wrote: > >>The CRJ can climb out over bad weather very quickly compared to > >>the prop. In many weather conditions, the prop never will climb high > >>enough to get above the rough conditions. > > > >There are pros and cons to everything. According to my pilot friends, you > >don't want to be in a light jet during landing if there's wind shear -- > >takes a little too long for the engines to spool up to counter the shear. > > Is this true? > > RNA The CJ610 of the Lear 25 can go from idle to takeoff thrust inabout 1.5 to 2 seconds. Normal procedure is to go to the wall and come back an inch. It is however a single spool turbojet with much less rotating mass than say a more modern TFE731 or JT15D. With these engine if you get them back to idle RPM it can take seconds (up to I think 8 on the JT15D) before it is making takeoff power. The trick then is not to pull them back to idle (de-spool). Therfore it is not light jets that are the problem but Poor Pilot Technique. Putting the aircraft in the landing configuration as soon as possible and adding the proper gust factor will insure that you have a high enough power setting so that if you need takeoff or To-The-Wall power the engine is spooled up enough so that it takes only a second or two to get there. - Bill (ATP,LR-JET) From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Are commuter aircrafts really that disliked ? References: <45mb1j$bl5@canyon.sr.hp.com> <45n0oe$d9n@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com> <45p2e5$l1c@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:38 In article tskono@ucdavis.edu (Timothy Kono) writes: Robert Ashcroft (rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu) wrote: : In article <45n0oe$d9n@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com>, : Michael Coch wrote: : >There are pros and cons to everything. According to my pilot friends, you : >don't want to be in a light jet during landing if there's wind shear -- : >takes a little too long for the engines to spool up to counter the shear. : Is this true? I'm just wondering but, are lighter jets more likely to be unstable during such things as wind sheer? Also, would faster and more powerful engines counter the sheer much faster and better? I just want to know. _____ In a windshear encounter, there are a couple of things going on. (I'm actually going to talk about microbursts, since they are the most "dangerous" form of windshear.) First, there (usually) is a pocket or stream of cold air descending vertically from a thunderstorm cloud. When this gets near the ground, it turns out in the radial direction and accelerates to high velocities. An ASCIIgram of the cross section (use fixed width font for best results): ||| <-Descending air ||| /|\ \--/|\--/ <- flattening and "rollup" near the ground ( < 2000 ft AGL) ================= <- the ground In the typical "hazard" case, the aircraft is flying an approach only a couple of thousand feet above ground. What the aircraft experiences is first a headwind, then a sharp change (shear) into a downwind followed immediately by a tailwind. Since the aircraft cannot change ground speed fast enough to maintain a constant airspeed, it "appears" that the airspeed drops quickly (in a few seconds) by large amounts (30+ knots). Obviously, this is a bad situation for any aircraft, including propellor and jet aircraft. However, with jet transports, there is a second, more dangerous effect than just airspeed loss. An airframe in flight, like any dynamic system, has "modes" of motion. One mode which every pilot becomes familiar with when first learning to fly is the phugoid mode. It is a pendulum-like motion caused by an out-of-phase oscillation of altitude and airspeed. It just so happens that the typical approach speed of a jet transport and the size of the microburst end up exciting this mode of oscillation, which makes recovery extremely difficult. Furthermore, since jet engines have a spool-up time latency (even just a couple of seconds), this can be the difference between hitting the ground and not hitting the ground. It turns out the recommended "escape manuever" for jets in a microburst is to command maximum thrust and pitch to "stick shaker", or maximum angle-of-attack. This is because the aircraft needs to combat altitude loss as quickly as possible. For a slow piston-engine aircraft, the "escape manuever" is not as clear: it turns out that for some aircraft, it's better to INCREASE airspeed by pitching down in order to escape the downdraft portion of the microburst as quickly as possible. (Slower aircraft by their nature are less susceptible to the airspeed loss because the slower speed translates to a weaker shear, but instead spend more time in the downdraft part.) However, research continues in this area. Bottom lines: 1) smaller, slower aircraft are not as greatly affected by the dynamics of a microburst encounter compared to jets. 2) If you're on a jet in a microburst encounter, you want to have as much excess thrust as possible to combat altitude loss. Sorry for the long reply, hope this helps, ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mrdc3@aol.com (MRDC3) Subject: Douglas DC-3 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: mrdc3@aol.com (MRDC3) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:38 I publish a quarterly magazine called the DC-3/Dakota Journal. I am looking for articles, stories, photos and experiences of anyone who has knowledge of the DC-3, C-47, Dakota, C-53, etc. etc. EMail me at MRDC3@AOL.com or Compuserve at 71231,566 for details on the Journal and on how to submit articles. Henry M. Holden - Publisher Also check out the DC-3/Dakota Historical Society and Air Cruise America on the World Wide Web at http://www.webcom.com/~aca/dc3.html From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@wis.com (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Engines (Was Re: Boeing in the WSJ) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:38 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >More RB211's than PW2000s on 757's? I didn't know that, and in fact would have : >guessed the opposite. Actually, in casual obesrvations I've seen approximately : >equal numbers. I assume that you made your observations mostly in the States, then I would say there are more PW2000-powered 757s. Delta, NW, and UA accounted for most of the PW2000-powered 757s. In Europe, there are very very few 757s with PW2000 engines. Condor is the only European operator with a sizable PW-powered B757 fleet. : >Does anyone know the percentage split between the Rolls and : >Pratt versions of the 757? : In another post, Andrew recently said that the RB.211 has roughly : 55-60% of the customers but more like 75-80% of the aircraft. The : difference comes from some of the largest fleets (Delta, Northwest, : United) using Pratts. Karl has inadvertently transposed the figures (it should be 55-60% of the aircraft and so on). The low-end numbers are my rough estimation based on in-service 757s, the high-end ones are R-R's marketing numbers. I think R-R has rounded up the numbers. : Notably, one of the larger 757 customers switched from Pratt to Rolls. : UPS started off with the PW2040 (a higher thrust engine for the higher : weight freighters than the PW2037 usually used on passenger 757s) for : their 757-200PF fleet. After the first 35 aircraft, they switched to : the RB.211-535E4 for future orders, with at least 15 Rolls-equipped : aircraft now in service. That's a pretty expensive change seeing as : how it adds another engine type to their fleet. (Their only other : Rolls engines are Tays, on their re-engined 727s.) Furthermore, I think the -535 and the Tays share very little hardware. The PW2000 has better fuel efficiency and better reliability than the -535, thus, it makes the switch even more mind-boggling. Nevertheless, mixed-engine fleet are not that uncommon outside the US. The example that I like to quote the most is Malaysia Airlines' B747 fleet. MAS has all the possible B747 powerplants under the sun, namely, the JT9D, the RB211-524, the CF6, and the PW4000. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cra@servtech.com (Curtis R. Anderson) Subject: Re: Engines (Was Re: Boeing in the WSJ) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gleepy's Henhouse Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 02:51:39 In , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >Notably, one of the larger 757 customers switched from Pratt to Rolls. >UPS started off with the PW2040 (a higher thrust engine for the higher >weight freighters than the PW2037 usually used on passenger 757s) for >their 757-200PF fleet. After the first 35 aircraft, they switched to >the RB.211-535E4 for future orders, with at least 15 Rolls-equipped >aircraft now in service. That's a pretty expensive change seeing as >how it adds another engine type to their fleet. (Their only other >Rolls engines are Tays, on their re-engined 727s.) But that's something that UPS planned when they ordered the 757-200PF series. It doesn't appear that they suddenly switched engine types or anything, from what I've read. -- Curtis R. Anderson, "Official Chicken Breeder of Hill 10", SP 2.5?, KoX URL: http://www.servtech.com/public/cra/ Opinions mine (not Service Tech's!) unless marked otherwise!!! From kls Fri Nov 3 02:51:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Engines (Was 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: 03 Nov 95 02:51:39 >>Notably, one of the larger 757 customers switched from Pratt to Rolls. >>UPS started off with the PW2040 ... After the first 35 aircraft, they >>switched to the RB.211-535E4 ... >But that's something that UPS planned when they ordered the 757-200PF >series. It doesn't appear that they suddenly switched engine types or >anything, from what I've read. Huh?! Their first 35 aircraft have Pratts, after that they have Rolls. Both engines were available when they placed their initial orders so it isn't a case where they had to take their second choice at first or wait for deliveries. Are you saying they planned from the outset to end up with a mixed fleet?! That would be incredibly daft. -- 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 Sat Oct 14 13:13:51 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Are commuter aircrafts really that disliked ? Date: 14 Oct 1995 12:30:12 -0700 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <45p2e5$l1c@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> References: <45mb1j$bl5@canyon.sr.hp.com> <45n0oe$d9n@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com> In article <45n0oe$d9n@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com>, Michael Coch wrote: >On Oct 13, 1995 14:06:25 in article disliked ?>, 'lous@sr.hp.com (Lou Salz)' wrote: >>The CRJ can climb out over bad weather very quickly compared to >>the prop. In many weather conditions, the prop never will climb high >>enough to get above the rough conditions. > >There are pros and cons to everything. According to my pilot friends, you >don't want to be in a light jet during landing if there's wind shear -- >takes a little too long for the engines to spool up to counter the shear. Is this true? [cross-posted to sci.aeronautics.airliners] RNA -- ********************************************************************* Great moments in Newspeak: "I do not like this word 'bomb'. It is not a bomb. It is a device which is exploding." ---Jacques Le Blanc, French Ambassador to New Zealand, on the tests of nuclear "exploding devices" in French Polynesia. From news Mon Oct 16 15:09:56 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: mkrotz@qrz.com (Mark Krotz) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Climb rates for airliners Date: 16 Oct 1995 11:25:27 -0700 Organization: QRZ Com Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <45tmsk$a44@maple.enet.net> References: In article , dpw@dircon.co.uk (Daniel Wil der) says: > >On 13 Oct 95 02:06:34 , vpribish@prokofiev. (vincent pribish) wrote: > >>As i learned in class the other day, >>airliner climb rates are heavily dictated >>by local noise regulations....you may want to >>climb very very steeply after liftoff and then as you >>pass over the wealthy subdivision in your flight path >>you will throttle back and crawl along so you don't >>disturb the taxpayers. > >That's a rather cynical view to take! I'm sure the "non-wealthy" >subdivisions at the end of the runway would prefer the noise then have >aircraft, using reduced power, knock tiles of their house roofs on Well, its true. I don't understand these idiots who build a house under the approach/arrival path to airports, and then bitch about airplane noise! What the hell do they expect. A good example is Phoenix Sky Harbor. Its been there since the late '10s or early '20s, much longer than almost any housing in the area. Same deal with Mesa, AZ Falcon Field. It's been there since the Big One, it was an RAF aux training base. Then some morons build houses around it in the orange groves and put a trailer park across the road, and now they bitch about the airplane noise! Another interesting case is Denver. Everyone whined about noise around Stapelton, so the city/county spent millions of dollars sound proofing peoples homes. Now they move the airport out of town, and everyone bitches cause they have to drive too far to get to the airport. Bottom line: If you don't want to hear airplane noise, don't live by the airport! And oh yes, noise abatement procedures do affect things like stated above (climb/departure procedures). Mark I love airplane noise! From news Mon Oct 16 22:51:06 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet From: Colin Povey Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. Date: 16 Oct 1995 21:40:53 -0700 Organization: AT&T Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> References: I was wondering if you know why the Avro RJ rejional jets are so popular. I like the planes myself, but I thought that the four engines would dramaticially increase the cost of the planes. Colin From news Fri Oct 20 14:14:34 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!wjcandee From: wjcandee@netcom.com (Bill Candee) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: ValuJet Order: What's Difference MD-95 and DC9-50? Date: 20 Oct 1995 11:13:02 -0700 Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU Approved: rna Message-ID: Now that ValuJet has ordered the MD-95 with RR/BMW engines (Wall St. Journal, today), I am wondering how good a decision this is on their part. I am happy to see Douglas get some work, but isn't the MD-95 really just a DC9-50 (DC-9 wing, long fuselage). As an Austrian Airlines captain [and former DC9-50 driver] explained here recently, the DC9-50 was a crutty plane to fly (no more than 10 degree bank at altitude, or it would buffet, world's longest takeoff and landing run, blown tires). Does anybody know whether Douglas has done anything to make the MD-95 a well-handling plane? I usually feel safer when I know that the pilot doesn't have to fight the plane (a sparsely-loaded 757 is a blast to fly in, for example, because it is so overpowered and maneuverable). --Bill From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:12 In article <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com>, Don Stokes wrote: >Note that the 707 has a double-lobed fuselage with a slight crease at >floor level between the two lobes. Later aircraft have circular fuselage >cross-sections. So I thought, but taking a look at both 737 and 757 fuselage sections before they were joined together convinced me that they are decidedly *NOT* circular, though they may be closer to circular than the 707. As I recall, Airbus does use a circular cross-section or something very close to it. The MD-80 has a very distinct crease where its two lobes join. Trivia: The fuselage cross-section of the upper deck portion of a 747 is a parabola. -- 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 Nov 3 04:23:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: galer@ozemail.com.au (Bill Galer) Subject: Re: Audio channel wiring References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:12 Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > I have been on aircraft in which the audio channel guide indicated >that the seats near the galley could hear the movie sound on a different >channel that the remainder of the seats. Why are these seats wired >differently? Cabin Seats near the windows at the front of a zone (near galleys etc.) often do not have a clear view of the video screens in their own 'zone' and the passengers are expected to view the video screen/s in the next zone forward of them. Although these seats are receiving the video soundtrack for their own zone on say channel one, the next zone forward may be screening a different video program (with it's audio available on channel one in that zone). To match up the soundtrack in say zone 'C' with the video shown on zone 'B', the soundtrack for the alternate video is made available on another channel say channel two. Some carriers have additional channels provided for the video soundtrack of both primary and/or alternate video programs to be received in different languages if available. This is a typical layout for large aircraft and is a result of the seats in each zone being wired the same rather than wired differently. Regards Bill Galer L.A.M.E. From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: malcolm@direct.ca Subject: Re: Thrust in idle engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Direct Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:12 >Also, why are DC9s and 727s capable of backing up from the gate without being >pushed ? Is it a technical or legal consideration ? (eg: engines being far >enough away from terminal for noise control etc). > Most aircraft with thrust reversers are capable of backing away from a gate. The aircraft with wing mounted engines, however, rarely do so because they can pick-up trash that is blown forward by the reversed engine -- the higher engines on B727's and DC9's are less likely to have this problem, and as a result, a number of airlines have used this procedure to save time and money. Malcolm From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Thrust in idle engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:13 In article , Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >When an engine is "idle" (eg: when aircraft awaiting takeoff, when aircraft >finally parks at the gate etc), how much thrust is being generated ? Very little. Aturbine engine delivers very little thrust while sitting at idle. They only begin to deliver significant amounts of thrust when given a little push above around 60-65%. > >If brakes are not applied, will the aircraft start moving right away with >engines "idling" ? When idling, do the compressor blades spin slowly enough to >be seen ? Most large airliners will noot move when the brakes are released at idle power as the generated thrust is not enough to overcome the inertia of the stationary aircraft. Small aircraft like learjets will move. The large airplanes will apply "breakaway thrust " to get the aircraft started rolling. > >Also, in a previous posting, someone said that without an APU, an aircraft >would require power and "air" from the ground to start its engine. Are we >talking about compressed air ? What for ? > The APU supplies compressed air to start the engines. The air drives a pneumatic starter which spins the HP compressor up to around 25% (I know pilots usually put fuel around 15%) at this point fuel and ignition are applied and the engine starts. The starter itself is a turbine of sorts. The compressed air spins it at around 40,000 RPM. This rotation spins the gearbox which spins the compressor. Small turbines (like the apu) use electric starters due to the decreased load on the starter. >Also, why are DC9s and 727s capable of backing up from the gate without being >pushed ? Is it a technical or legal consideration ? (eg: engines being far >enough away from terminal for noise control etc). > "Powerbacks" for DC-9 and 727 aircraft are allowed because the engines are high enough off of the ground to avoid ingesting debris from the gorund. Also the reverser system allows for this because ALL of the exhaust flow is diverted. On a high bypass engine only the cold stream exhaust is diverted. This causes a problem with forward thrust and reverse thrust at the same time. Before I get all kinds of arguments about that one, I know they work when the airplane lands. It just causes alot more debris to fly around the ramp besides, the ground crew would not appreciate being sucked into an engine running at 80% in reverse. ------------------------------------- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org WWW: http://www.io.org/~bradg/ A&P, AME (Canada), PPASEL (Canada) Leading Edge Aviation Services From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Thrust in idle engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:13 >In article Jean-Francois Mezei writes: > Also, in a previous posting, someone said that without an APU, an aircraft > would require power and "air" from the ground to start its engine. Are we > talking about compressed air ? What for ? Yes, compressed air would be required in most cases. Because a turbine engine needs quite a few RPMs before the thrust from combustion can allow the compressor to enable continuous operation, an external supply of energy must be available to spin the high pressure spool. While one could probably design an electric starter motor to perform this task, it would probably drain the batteries to an unsatisfactory level, not to mention probably being pretty heavy. Therefore, one uses compressed air to get the spool "windmilling" to a high enough rotational velocity to allow a start. In flight, if the engine were to flame out, the windmilling rotation induced by the freestream air allows the spools to remain spun up, so this isn't a safety problem. Thus, assuming everything is working properly in the engine and fuel systems, the only time one couldn't start the engine would be when the aircraft is standing still (which should be acceptably safe). :-) > Also, why are DC9s and 727s capable of backing up from the gate without being > pushed ? Is it a technical or legal consideration ? (eg: engines being far > enough away from terminal for noise control etc). This is called a "powerback", and only American Airlines and TWA (that I'm aware of) in the US perform it. The reason that these aircraft are allowed to do so is: 1) relatively low weight, and 2) rear engines, mounted higher off the ground compared with wing-mounted engines. This topic has been discussed in depth in the past, so see the archives. ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eirikur@ix.netcom.com () Subject: Re: Thrust in idle engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:14 Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >When an engine is "idle" (eg: when aircraft awaiting takeoff, when aircraft >finally parks at the gate etc), how much thrust is being generated ? >If brakes are not applied, will the aircraft start moving right away with >engines "idling" ? When idling, do the compressor blades spin slowly enough to >be seen ? >Also, in a previous posting, someone said that without an APU, an aircraft >would require power and "air" from the ground to start its engine. Are we >talking about compressed air ? What for ? >Also, why are DC9s and 727s capable of backing up from the gate without being >pushed ? Is it a technical or legal consideration ? (eg: engines being far >enough away from terminal for noise control etc). Mr. Mezei, Engine thrust is a funtion of %rpm, ambient temp, and relative humidity (air density). Most jet engines idle at around 60%-70% of max rpm. Which, if no brakes are applied, is quite sufficient to move the aircraft. It must be noted that, even at idle rpm, the engine is still rotating at several thousand rpm, which is too fast to see individual blades. Jet engines may be started using several methods. One of which is air pressure. Compressed air is forced through a small turbine which is splined via a gearbox to the engine. When the small turbine rotates fast enough and brings the engine to 18-28%rpm, you "light off" the engine. This is usually done by advancing the throttle lever to the idle position., and if all goes well, the engine will start, and the starter turbine will disengage at about 50% of engine rpm. This air pressure may be aquired from an APU, bleed air from another engine, or from some types of ground power units. DC-9's and 727's ( and many other airliners ) have thrust reversers. These, in the case of the -9 and 727, are a pair of doors on the engine nacell which open out and rearward to form a "v" inthe exhaust path, directing the airflow forward. Each airline and airport have regulations dictating when, where, and under what conditions 'reverse thrust' may be used to facillitate backing away from the terminal. I hope that this has helped you, and if you have any further questions or need further clarification about my reply, please feel free to e-mail me or post to the news group. JCD USAF AVMAINT. From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: skyesis@portal.com Subject: Re: Thrust in idle engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServ News Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:14 In article , writes: > > If brakes are not applied, will the aircraft start moving right away with > engines "idling" ? Depends if the aircraft in question is light or heavy. A heavy aircraft will develope flat spots that keeps the aircraft parked at idle thrust even after the chacks are pulled. On a cold winter day you can feel the flatspots going round on a Navajo until the tire heats up on its own. > When idling, do the compressor blades spin slowly enough to > be seen ? No but some of the hubs have neat black white designs on them that you can see going around, and around, and around, and around, ... > Also, in a previous posting, someone said that without an APU, an aircraft > would require power and "air" from the ground to start its engine. Are we > talking about compressed air ? What for ? Compressed air blown through the engine to get it rotating to the point where fuel can be added and ignited to finish the start. Fuel+fire-rotation=meltdown. > Also, why are DC9s and 727s capable of backing up from the gate without being > pushed ? Is it a technical or legal consideration ? (eg: engines being far > enough away from terminal for noise control etc). I dunough. But here is a sWAG at it: Did you ever notice a yellow painted arc infront of where the engine are on a 737 when parked at the gate. That is for IDLE thrust. Anything that is not heavy or tied down is going to be sucked through an expensive engine. Now, push up the throttle to MAX Reverse an imagine how big that area whould have to be. Your million dollar engine would probably be sucking up ground power cables, airconditioner ducting, gound crew and anything else that happens to be in those bins under a movable (but unfortunately nearby) jetway. The DC-9 and 727 can get away with this procedure because 1)the FAA lets them, and 2) there engine are Low Bypass turbofans that are high up out of the way. And while I'm sure they are sucking lots of dirt and dust, they are not sucking anything big enough to dammage the engine. (I bet they have though) Hope that explains it. - Bill From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Thrust in idle engines 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: 03 Nov 95 04:23:14 >When an engine is "idle" (eg: when aircraft awaiting takeoff, when aircraft >finally parks at the gate etc), how much thrust is being generated ? Depends on the engine but I believe a PW 2037 puts out about 1,200 lbs of thrust at ground idle. >If brakes are not applied, will the aircraft start moving right away with >engines "idling" ? Depends on how heavy the airplane is. >Also, in a previous posting, someone said that without an APU, an aircraft >would require power and "air" from the ground to start its engine. Are we >talking about compressed air ? What for ? The compressed air drives the air-turbine motors that turn the engine for start. >Also, why are DC9s and 727s capable of backing up from the gate without being >pushed ? Is it a technical or legal consideration ? (eg: engines being far >enough away from terminal for noise control etc). I think it's mainly a technical consideration. The high-mounted engines on the DC9 and 727 are less likely to get FOD damage then the low engines on a 737. Dave From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: 757 engine (fan?) noise during freewheel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:14 In article , Jon Ward wrote: > barr@netcom.com "Keith Barr" writes: >> Centrifugal force holds the blades in the proper position when the engine is >> running. > >Hmmm, correct me if I am wrong, but I am _sure_ that there is no thing as >centrifugal force. There is a combination of centripetal acceleration and >tangental velocity in circular motion, which is what I assume holds the fan >blades in place. > It does depend slightly on how you look at it. In an accelerating frame of reference (of which a rotating frame is an example), a force is appied on objects in the frame, due to the accelerating frame of reference. This force is applied outwards from the centre of rotation, and is called 'centrifugal force'. It is an example of a class of forces called 'fictitious forces' or 'inertial forces'. If you are sitting in a frame of reference that is rotating, then the force is perfectly real, which is why I don't like the expression 'fictitious force'. If you look at the same physical situation from a frame of reference that is not accelerating, then it is true that the centrifugal force is not present. However, this is no more or less valid than looking at the problem from an accelerating frame of reference. Whether it is more or less useful depends on the situation. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk Disclaimer: the opinions presented here are mine alone, but they should be yours too because they're right. From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Garnet ,K" Subject: Re: Cockpit noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Whidbey Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:15 The question you ask is hard to quantify. I flew the 727.737,747-200 the noise is mostly airspeed noise. I have made recordings on some of my flights but have no measuremnts if tha is what you need. From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: david.allard@pilots.iconz.co.nz (DAVID ALLARD) Subject: Re: Cockpit noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: david.allard@pilots.iconz.co.nz (DAVID ALLARD) Organization: Pilots' Bulletin Board System , Auckland, New Zealand Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:15 -> Does anyone out there have any information regarding the amount of -> cockpit noise there is in present day airliners such as -> B747-100/200/300s, 747-400s and any other Boeing airliner information -> you might have. -> I'm looking for information that a layman can understand. Any help or -> information you might have is most appreciated! Having flown some of the above I can tell you that the 747- cockpit is noisier than the B767 and DC10 shaped cockpit areas. This is due to a number of factors. 1. The crew escape hatch is a source of extra noise even though it has a modicum of soundproofing over it. 2.The shape of the 747 cockpit "bulge" results in high mach numbers in that region and greater airflow noise. A number of 747 crew I knew wore earplugs to reduce the affect of the noise levels. Regards, David A. From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wakefiel@access5.digex.net (doug wakefield) Subject: safety vs noise Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:15 During discussions of identifying engiens by their sound, and more recently a discussion on rates of climb, the subject of noise reduction appeared. A very straightforward question that probably donesn't have a straightforward answer. Do the requirements for reduce noise compromise safety at all? Seems to me throtling back during a planes most vulnerable time can't help but increase risk if a problem suddenly appears. But I'm not a pilot. From kls Fri Nov 3 04:23:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Vincent Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines A310 replacement References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 03 Nov 95 04:23:15 My guess would be that Boeing stands to clinch the deal as the Straits Times report has also mentioned SIA's participation in the development of the Boeing 777-100 which it may also be keen to buy. I do not think that SIA will make any sort of political statement by choosing Boeing over Airbus. In this part of the world, seldom are there any political protests of such a nature (although Malaysia did protest about the French nuclear testing yesterday...). Our senior minister was quoted as saying that he would like further economic cooperation with the French just when about everyone else was too busy slamming them about their chemical experiments at sea. The decision would be guided by commercial interests more than anything else.The result is due out next week. Vern From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ilyam@aol.com (Ilya M) Subject: MEETING NOTICE WW1 AERO HISTORIANS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:53 Reply-To: ilyam@aol.com (Ilya M) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) The Atlantic Coast Chapter of the League of WWI Aero Historians will be meeting on Saturday, November 11, 1995 from 9:00am-3:00pm Location: NASM Garber Restoration Facility, Suitland, Maryland Speakers: Peter Jakab, Curator, NASM and Ted Hamady Topic: "The Curatorial Decision Process And The Nieuport 28 Restoration" Speaker: Paul Silbermann, Archives, NASM Topic: "Everything You Wanted To Know And How To Locate It" a comprehensive examination of the NASM Archive with special reference to the materials pertaining to WWI aviation. Activity: Guided Tour of the Facility, as well as an open discussion session quaintly referred to as "show n' tell", it works for us! Cost: $15 includes morning refreshments, box lunch and incidental expenses YOU MUST RSVP SO THAT WE ORDER ENOUGH LUNCHES! CALL RANDY GAULKE AT 201-538-3650 or e-mail to ilyam@aol.com Directions as follows: from MD take Beltway (I-495/95) to Branch Ave., Silver Hill Exit (Rt. 5N) make left, go one block to traffic light (Jct. Rt. 5) go right and follow Rt. 5 for 1 mile to St. Barnabas Rd. (Rt. 414) continue on St. Barnabas 0.5 miles to facility, directly across Silver Hill Road intersection. from VA take Beltway (I-495/95) over Woodrow Wilson Bridge to exit 4B St. Barnabas Rd. (Rt.414E) follow St. Barnabas for 3 miles (7 lights) to intersection at Silver Hill Road go thru intersection, facility is on immediate right. From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Addison Schonland Subject: Re: Aircraft Order Update (Nov 1, 95) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Data Transfer Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:54 Add 7x777 and 2x744 for South African Airways to be announced this week. -- Best regards, Addison Schonland Phone: (619) 637-4000 Fax: (619) 637-4040 From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rsim@se9ws259.be (robert simpson sh514 4738) Subject: Re: Any info on CP DC-10 incident @ YVR Oct 19? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rsim@sebb.bel.alcatel.be Organization: Alcatel Bell Telephone Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:54 In article , bylsma@unixg.ubc.ca (Dieder Bylsma) writes: |> Recently we had a rather dramatic aborted take-off in Vancouver involving |> a Canadian Airlines DC-10 taking off West-bound and being forced to abort Another uncommented incident: I had been expecting reaction in the group to a landing in Germany (?) last month (?) with no nose-wheel (?) or somesuch. I saw video on Belgium TV news. Anyone else know any more (or more accurate) info? -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Robert M. Simpson | | e-mail: rsim@sebb.bel.alcatel.be | +===========================================================================+ From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Addison Schonland Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines A310 replacement References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIC Research, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:54 I wonder how low SIA will be able to drive Boeing and Airbus. SAA just announced an order for 7x777s and 2x744s. The pressure on Airbus must be huge and they wan this one badly! If Boeing wants to get the order, I bet SIA will make them bleed. And then Airbus might cut their price again... -- Best Regards, Addison Schonland - Phone (619) 637-4000 Fax (619) 637-4040 From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: dzul@theos.com (Dzulkifli Basri) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines A310 replacement References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:55 In message - hoyme@src.honeywell.com (K en Hoyme) writes: :>I have wondered how the French nuclear testing in the South Pacific will :>affect the relative sales of Boeing/MD and Airbus airplanes. In those :>cases where there is government funding involved, there may be the desire :>to make a political statement (or at least not look like the government is :>supporting the French at this time). :> :>I'll bet it is a factor.... I do not think Singapore Airlines will buy airplanes to make a political statement. if SIA thinks that the Boeing aircraft will fulfill the company's future expansion plans that it will get the Boeing aircrafts otherwise.... its only me .................................dzul ************************************************* i am who i am but i am not my company's spokesman From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Nicolas E. Murat" Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines A310 replacement References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:55 On 31 Oct 1995, Ken Hoyme wrote: > I have wondered how the French nuclear testing in the South Pacific will > affect the relative sales of Boeing/MD and Airbus airplanes. In those > cases where there is government funding involved, there may be the desire > to make a political statement (or at least not look like the government is > supporting the French at this time). > > I'll bet it is a factor.... Please note that such a political statement would cause outrage amongst all the other members of the Airbus Consortium: Germany, UK, and Spain. We must remember that that France's Aerospaciale is only part of the group. Airbus Industrie is a European Consortium guys. Nick. From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Subject: Re: Fokker 50 climb performance References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:55 In an Oct 31 message, the following question was asked: >Who knows what the climb-performance is of a Fokker 50 in an N-1 >situation in the approach climb. >The required approach-climb requirement is 2.1%, but I would like to know >what the real figure is. For a given configuration and using the recommended speed, the "real" figure depends on the weight of the airplane, the temperature on that day, and the altitude at which the approach climb is being conducted. Only when the landing weight of the airplane is constrained by its approach climb performance will the one-engine-inoperative climb gradient be 2.1% Typically, the climb capability will be significantly better. Don S. From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: damiross@ix.netcom.com (David M. Ross) Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:56 Michael Carley wrote: >Colin Povey writes: >>I was wondering if you know why the Avro RJ rejional jets are >>so popular. I like the planes myself, but I thought that the >>four engines would dramaticially increase the cost of the planes. >Probably because the four engines make passengers feel more secure The main reason is due to the low thrust rating (about 7,000 lbs) of the engines. Two engines wouldn't allow for flight as well as four engines. However, even with four engines, the fuel used is still less than that of a comparable two engine aircraft (at least at the time the RJ (nee 146) was launched - don' t know if this is still true.) david From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:56 Karl Swartz wrote: The MD-80 has a very distinct crease where its two lobes join. ---------------------------------------- The two lobes are joined by the floor panels. The design of the upper lobe allows for maximum fuselage diameter at the PAX elbows. While this was good for the passengers, it did result in a very labor intensive manufacturing process. I believe one of the significant benifits to Douglas on the MD-95 is that it IS a circular cross section, allowing automated manufacturing processes. (The DC-9/MD-8x family were all assembled by hand. Manufacturing labor was, in general, in excess of 60,000 hours per aircraft - but I don't know how much of that was directly attributable to the fuselage assembly process itself.) Brian Reynolds From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu (Peter Hollingsworth) Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:56 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > So I thought, but taking a look at both 737 and 757 fuselage sections > before they were joined together convinced me that they are decidedly > *NOT* circular, though they may be closer to circular than the 707. > As I recall, Airbus does use a circular cross-section or something > very close to it. The MD-80 has a very distinct crease where its two > lobes join. All Boeing a/c up until the 777 were built with the "double bubble" fuselage. airbus has always used circular crossections, that is one of the reasons for the added width on the A319/320/321 series over the Boeing narrowbodies. Also all Boeing comercial narrowbodies have identical fuselage cross sections in the constant, none wing body sections (the 717/C135 series, was a solely military a/c). -- I am The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor. Destroyer of Worlds, Eliminator of populations, And the bane of Humanity. gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1630 From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: gt1086c@prism.gatech.edu (Gregory Glockner) Subject: Re: 777F References: <44k9k6$b9g@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:56 >On 13 Oct 1995, BBost0325 wrote: >> As for the 747-400F for FedEx, it will probably >> never happen. They don't like their 747s now (they just don't fit their >> operation) and will rid all of them in the next 5 years or so. FedEx's 747s all came from the buyout of Flying Tigers. To the best of my knowledge, FedEx never bought any 747s outright; I'd suspect that they were never all that interested in 747s. -- Gregory Glockner Graduate Research Assistant http://akula.isye.gatech.edu/~greg/ Logistics Engineering Center glockner@isye.gatech.edu School of ISyE, Georgia Inst. of Technology 404-894-2366 From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "A. Kevin Rodriguez" Subject: Re: Are commuter aircrafts really that disliked ? References: <45mb1j$bl5@canyon.sr.hp.com> <45n0oe$d9n@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com> <45p2e5$l1c@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TASC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:57 Ed Hahn wrote: > > In article tskono@ucdavis.edu (Timothy Kono) writes: > > Robert Ashcroft (rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu) wrote: > : In article <45n0oe$d9n@pipe6.nyc.pipeline.com>, > : Michael Coch wrote: > > : >There are pros and cons to everything. According to my pilot friends, you > : >don't want to be in a light jet during landing if there's wind shear -- > : >takes a little too long for the engines to spool up to counter the shear. > > velocities. An ASCIIgram of the cross section (use fixed width font > for best results): > > ||| <-Descending air > ||| > /|\ > \--/|\--/ <- flattening and "rollup" near the ground ( < 2000 ft AGL) > ================= <- the ground > > In the typical "hazard" case, the aircraft is flying an > approach only Back in the late 80's I did some ATC transcription for my ofice mate who was doing an operational evaluation of Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) for the FAA. My experience in hearing the pilots and comparing this to the TDWR read-outs follows. Most, if not all, of the events recorded were transport a/c (e.g., B737, MD80, etc.). The evaluation was conducted at Denver Stapleton. Note that I use ground speed since there are drastic wind changes and, not knowing the correct terms, refer to ground speed as a point of reference for linear velocity. I'm sure those of you who can will straighten me out. The initial entry into the microbusrt give the a/c a headwind accompanied with an updraft. This has the tendancy to reduce the a/c's ground speed and rise above the glide slope of the ILS. In the past, no longer I believe, the pilots would want to continue the approach and would fight the updraft to keep the glide slope. They would not abort the approach. They would then enter the horizontal out-draft of the micro burst if they were low enough. This would be an increased headwind further reducing ground speed. The a/c will then enter the down-draft. There will no longer be a head wind. The a/c will then begin to sink below the glide-slope. The initial problem would be the configuration of the a/c for the updraft. Some pilots would continue the approach if they could maintain the center-line and the glide slope. The next phase would be entry into the far-side out-draft. This is if speed had deteriorated significantly, stall was a real possibility. Depending upon the techniques of the pilot, theamount of airspeed maintained or increased in the down-draft would determine how close they came to a stall situation. There were no accidents while the evaluation took place. The closest an a/c came to the ground was ~ 300 ft. AGL (outside the outer marker). The TDWR technology is the windshear alert system which is now being installed at airports. The most confusing part of the whole thing to me is the failure to read the initial up-draft. If the up-draft is taken as an indicator of what's to come, then the pilot would increase power, abort the approach, and not try to stay on the glide-slope. Certainly the most important issue, IMHO, was to abort. Trying to stay on the glide-slope forced the pilot to configure the aircraft for the existing conditions and that configuration was the worst thing for the next segment of the micro. Those initial seconds to change configuration were the most important. I would agree with the previous posters that the pilot has the most to do with a windshear being an uncomfortable situation. Is there anyone who could shead some light on the impacts of engine spooling, and aircraft size on surviving windshear (beyond that previously stated)? __________________________________________ A. Kevin Rodriguez (AKRodriguez@TASC.com) The Analytic Sciences Corporation (TASC) Reading, Massachusetts From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Subject: Re: Boeing Airliner subscriptions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:57 For those who have asked, the Boeing Airliner magazine is available for personal subscriptions at a rate of $35/year. A check, made payable to Boeing Airliner Magazine, can be sent to: Airliner Magazine Office Boeing Commercial Airplane Group P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 It is published quarterly by the Customer Services Division, and contains information of interest to operators of Boeing airplanes. Don S. From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: 727 with larger tail-top engine? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:57 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>I flew in to Jackson, Mississippi several times recently, and >>each time I saw a Federal Express or UPS (I don't recall which) >>727 which appeared to have a slightly larger tail-top engine. > >Sounds like one of the UPS 727-100s re-engined by Dee Howard with >Rolls-Royce Tay 651 engines. About half of their -100s have been >done, with the remainder being done in fairly short order. (All >of their -200s still have the original JT8Ds. FedEx still has >JT8Ds on all their 727s.) > actually the inlet for the #2 engine on the 727-100 is a little larger than the Pod engines to allow for the airflow restrictions in the S-Duct. The Airplanes which were re-engined only had the # 1 and 3 engines replaced due to the engineering involved in reworking the S-duct in the #2 position. On these aircraft the inlet looks smaller in the #2 position. I have not however seen a re-engined -100 the Tay engines are far more common on the -200 aircraft. Interesting note: The #2 engine thrust reverser is deactivated and the engine is locked into Idle position (flight idle?) It's only real purpose is to drive a generator and hydraulic pump for the aircraft. And for cabin pressurization air to the packs. ------------------------------------- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org WWW: http://www.io.org/~bradg/ A&P, AME (Canada), PPASEL (Canada) Leading Edge Aviation Services From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: MAINT Subject: Re: 727 with larger tail-top engine? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BrainTree Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:58 Karl, here is an oddball 727 engine mod that stumped me. I was in Istanbul Turkey three weeks ago and there was a 727 there with a cylindrical addition to all three tail pipes. This mod results in the thrust reverser being further aft than standard. The aircraft was parked next to a standard 727 and the difference was obvious. The modified 727 was in the markings of a cargo outfit, Turkish Cargo, if I remember right. My only guess is that this aircraft has the Fedex Stage III hushkit installed. BTW - there is a THY 727 stripped of all three engines and all doors sitting out by the runways. I heard that it is being stripped for parts. Also - the Turkish Air Force Museum on the far side of the field has on of Istanbul Airlines old Carvalles, less JT8Ds. -Dave Lednicer dave@amiwest.com From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 727 with larger tail-top engine? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:58 >there was a 727 there with a cylindrical addition to all three tail >pipes. This mod results in the thrust reverser being further aft >than standard ... My only guess is that this aircraft has the Fedex >Stage III hushkit installed. I saw something like that on one of USAir's BAC-111s back when they were still flying them and it was indeed a hushkit. Other hushkits are almost entirely internal. I think there are several available for the 727, so I couldn't guess if this is the FedEx one or perhaps another. (I've never seen one on a 727, either.) -- 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 Nov 6 14:28:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eph72385@Rosie.UH.EDU Subject: Re: 727 with larger tail-top engine? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: eph72385@Rosie.UH.EDU Organization: University of Houston Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:59 In article , libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: >I flew in to Jackson, Mississippi several times recently, and >each time I saw a Federal Express or UPS (I don't recall which) >727 which appeared to have a slightly larger tail-top engine. >That is, the engine on top of the tail seemed to have a larger inlet >(the front few feet of the engine) and then the rest of the cylinder >was slightly smaller. > >Am I imagining this, or has FedEx/UPS/whoever modified some 727's >such that the engine casings are different sizes from e.g. Delta's 727's >which don't have that larger leading edge of the tail-top engine? If I'm not mistaken, didn't the original 727s have a different cowl design (perhaps more oval or larger)? I know that the original design produced turbulent airflow which caused stalls, which was remedied by VGs inside the cowl. I believe the -200 had a redesigned cowl. phil From kls Mon Nov 6 14:28:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Parker Nolen Subject: Re: 727 with larger tail-top engine? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Infobahn Online Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:28:59 Jay-- What you are seeing is a FedEx Aviation Services modification to the 727 to make it copliant with Stage 3 noise regulations soon to ake effect. FedEx is marketing this conversion kit to any airline who wouldlike to keep their 727's flying after the noise regulations take effect. A result of the modification is a slightly larger intake on the Number 2 (tail) engine. Parker Nolen wpn@infobahnos.com From kls Mon Nov 6 14:29:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: datamedia1@aol.com (DATAMEDIA1) Subject: Re: Douglas DC-3 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: datamedia1@aol.com (DATAMEDIA1) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:29:00 Perhaps one or more of you out there can assist on this one. In 1986 I believe, we landed in Coimbitar (sp?) India. The airport used by Indian Airlines was a military airfield because the commercial field could not accomodate the B737's they were then using on the Bangalore-Coimbitar route. On landing, I looked out on the right side and saw DC-3/Dakota's parked in the trees along the full length of the runway. The trees had grown up around the aircraft but all had the grass and branches neatly trimmed around the aircraft. All of the planes looked flyable if the trees were removed. Upon turning at the end of thr runway, the same was true for the other side......all told, probably more than 100 DC-3's, all looking as though you could hop in and fly them away if someone would cut the trees between the aircraft and the runway. This appeared to be the world's largest DC-3 parking lot, with aircraft maintained by the Indian Air Force, but the grounds keepers had forgotten to keep the trees under control. Does anyone know if these planes are still there? If so, this could be the subject of an article for a future edition of this magazine. Fred Luessen ex Flying Tiges, TWA, AmWest and IATA From kls Mon Nov 6 14:29:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: A320 comments References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Nov 95 14:29:00 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: > In article simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) writes: > >> For an emergency landing, is it ever desireable to dump excess fuel to reduce > >> the possibility or extent of a fire? Would it make a difference or is fuel > >> dumping only for reducing the landing weight? > > > >No, this is never the case. Fuel jettison capability is only for the > >specific purpose of reducing the landing weight of the aircraft. > > "Never" is a strong word, since so many pilots have gone on record stating > explicitly that they do this when facing a gear-up landing (as my earlier > comments alluded to). Well, that is a different situation entirely. For the record, I don't consider fuel dumping for a "belly up landing" as being the same as fuel dumping "for the specific purpose of reducing the landing weight of the aircraft." It is quite obvious to me that a belly up landing is an emergency situation! I must admit, when I replied to the original post, I hadn't considered a belly up landing as an emergency landing when I should have! Simon From kls Tue Nov 7 12:21:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Ballentine Subject: Re: A310, low visibility landing in Zurich, Switzerland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Chile Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Nov 95 12:21:53 ajvdplas@pi.net wrote: > >that. With a CAT III-appraoch the auto-pilot land the plane. Also if the >aircraft and aerodrome is equped with the right tools the aircraft taxies >itself of the runway. You don't them need any visibility. > This is the first time I've heard of an "auto-taxi" capability. I thought this was the real limiting factor in 0/0 landings. Can anybody elucidate? Jim B. From kls Tue Nov 7 12:21:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: 747-100 SUD 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 Nov 95 12:21:54 I was catching up the last half-year of Air Transport World, and one of them had a column about the JAL 747 that carries the Disney motif (for domestic consumption only). The article said that the aircraft was one of two 747-100 that JAL had had retrofitted with a stretched upper deck. Said the article, this was calculated to drive plane spotters crazy. This is the first I have heard of -100 being fitted with the stretched upper deck. I know that a number of -200 were remanufactured to -300 status by Boeing (KLM has a few, I think). Anyone have any more details? Enquiring minds, etc. RNA -- Great moments in Newspeak: "I do not like this word 'bomb'. It is not a bomb. It is a device which is exploding." ---Jacques Le Blanc, French Ambassador to New Zealand, on the tests of nuclear "exploding devices" in French Polynesia. From kls Tue Nov 7 12:21:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-100 SUD References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Nov 95 12:21:54 >The article said that the aircraft was one of two 747-100 that JAL >had had retrofitted with a stretched upper deck. The latest JP shows the following 747-100 variants in JAL's fleet: 2 747-146 both Super Resort Express colors, whatever that is 3 747-146B(SR) one in Dream Express (Disney) colors 2 747-146B(SR/SUD) one in Dream Express (Disney) colors Looks like those last two are the ones you're talking about. >This is the first I have heard of -100 being fitted with the >stretched upper deck. I thought this was the first I'd heard about them as well, though I just looked at some old notes on the -300 and I had them listed then so I guess I forgot. Structurally, I think a late design 747-100 (i.e., not a three-holer) and an early -200B (i.e., before they dropped the spiral stairs) are the same so the only limit would be weight. Weight's not an issue for the Japanese domestic 747s (and DC-10s) and they need every bit of capacity, so why not? >I know that a number of -200 were remanufactured to -300 status by >Boeing (KLM has a few, I think). They're still -200Bs (albeit modified) and not -300s, though, at least according to what I've seen. A retrofitted -200B is a 747-200B(SUD), for Stretched Upper Deck. Originally, aircraft built with longer upper deck were called a 747-200B(EUD), for Extended Upper Deck, but the designation was changed to 747-300 and applied retroactively to the -200B(EUD) models. KLM modified ten aircraft, whereas they only bought three -300s new. UTA also had a pair of them, plus a single -300. The two JAL aircraft are the only other SUDs I'm aware of. -- 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 Nov 7 12:21:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter_whiteside@mindlink.bc.ca (POW) Subject: Re: Any info on CP DC-10 incident @ YVR Oct 19? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Nov 95 12:21:55 bylsma@unixg.ubc.ca (Dieder Bylsma) wrote: >Recently we had a rather dramatic aborted take-off in Vancouver involving >a Canadian Airlines DC-10 taking off West-bound and being forced to abort. >It over-ran the runway and ended up with a collapsed nose gear (in rather >sodden ground) and definitely with a load of surprised and shocked >passengers. Apparently also a runway field worker was taken to hospital >for treatment of severe shock as the DC-10 went carreening off the runway >towards him(f-shaped skid marks apparent from helicopter view) and scared >the daylights out him...fancy that! A little off the topic of the original post, but related... The DC10 incident was only one of 3 that occurred at YVR in a 2 week period. The others didn't seem to get so much coverage, so I was wondering if anyone knows more details about them. First of these involved a Cdn government A300. It was undergoing engine maintenance and the maint. crew were performing a routine engine test. From what I heard, they had not placed the correct size of chocks under the landing gear for this type of engine test. Result was that the A300 jumped the chocks and accelerated into a nearby building. Don't know what the damage was. Second was a Singapore 747 which , according to a brief news show snip, drifted off the centre line on approach. Pilots attempts to get back on the approach resulted in the number 4 engine hitting the runway on landing. Again, don't know what the damage was. --- pwhiteside@essa.com From kls Tue Nov 7 12:21:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jkd214@aol.com (JKD214) Subject: Help: 737-300 Max Air Speed ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jkd214@aol.com (JKD214) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Nov 95 12:21:55 I an currently working on a product for a Boeing 737-700 aircraft. My design requirements seem a bit excessive and are driving my cost through the roof. I am questing the max air speed of this aircraft. I would like to know the max air speed of this aircraft if any one knows. If any Boeing engineers are reading this please disreguard (Al, Cathy, Tom). From kls Tue Nov 7 12:21:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Airbus/Boeing pilot-aircraft interface paradigms. 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: 07 Nov 95 12:21:56 Alain Deckers Wrote: >I know that this subject has been coveredbefore in this group, but I'd >be interested in gathering the opinions of pilots and design engineers >about the different strategies adopted by Airbus and Boeing concerning >the pilot-aircraft interface. >As I understand it, Boeing seems to be more 'pilot-centred' in its >approach, while Airbus is more '(design) engineer-oriented'. Thus >Boeing generally grants the pilot ultimate authority, while Airbus >often allows the computer to over-ride the pilot. Also, Boeing >provides less ambiguous instrument feedback than Airbus, eg the >auto-throttle levers moves in a Boeing aircraft, not in an Airbus. >Is this correct? I'm neither a pilot nor an engineer (it probably >shows), but am interested in the evolution of design paradigms. I'd be >very grateful for any feedback. Yes, I would say that you are correct. One of the Boeing design guidelines is that that automatic systems should not ever over-ride a pilot's input. Tactile feed back is also considered important; which is why the throttles are back driven and Boeing stays with a control column with a "feel computer" putting tactile feedback to the flight crew. The design paradigm has to do with the basic safety analysis process. Boeing tends to build systems which keep the pilot in the loop (inasmuch as information, feedback, and control). Personal Opinion Here: As a systems design engineer with a psychological/anthropology degree, I would feel uncomfortable designing a system which would take over too much of the "airmanship" which Boeing tends to leave in the loop (via the crew). There are a lot of subtle cues which a pilot uses; maybe even unconciously. Dave -- David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: vwfixer@goodnet.com (Shane Dean) Subject: Re: PW JT-8D Cruise Parameters for MD88 and B-727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: vwfixer@goodnet.com Organization: GoodNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:08 In article , tristar500@aol.com says... > >Lot's of people ask for this kind of information so here's a list of >engine parameters for a B727 and an MD88 at cruise. > >>>727-200 with JT8D-15A engines >Gross Wt - 147,000 >IAS - 300 >Altitude - 33,000 >Mach - .84 >Ram Air Temp - minus 14 >Static Air Temp - minus 17 >Stab Units - plus 10 > >EPR - 1990/2000/1990 >N1 - 88.8/87.5/87.0 >EGT - 480/480/470 >Fuel Flow - 3500/3300/3300 >N2 - 87.8/87.6/88.8 >Oil Temp - 86/92/95 >Oil Press - 47/48/45 > >>>MD88 with JT8D-219 engines >Gross Wt - 110,000 >IAS - 309 >Altitude - 28,000 >Mach - .782 >Ram Air Temp - minus 05 >Static Air Temp - minus 32 >Stab Units - plus 03 > >EPR - 1669/1670 >N1 - 80.8/81.3 >EGT - 410/417 >Fuel Flow - 3550/3600 >N2 - 88.0/88.7 >Oil Temp - 86/86 >Oil Press - 48/48 > First of all, my question is... what are these numbers?!? E.P.R. is usually around 1.00 or so. 1990-2000? JT8D engines (at least the ones I work on), don't burn this much fuel, even at T/O. Possibly, I don't understand these numbers because there is no ref point, ie. idle/Take-off (cruise would be signifigantly less than T/O I would assume). Well, those are my questions, because I have an enquiring mind and I'd like to know. ;-} From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: spagiola Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World Bank Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:08 bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) wrote: > I believe one of the significant benifits to Douglas on the MD-95 is that > it IS a circular cross section, allowing automated manufacturing processes. I haven't heard anything about that, and doubt it is true. Such a major change to the fuselage would cause to significant cost increases and pretty much obviate the economic benefits of producing a derivative type. Everything I've read indicates the MD-95 fuselage is a simple shrink of the MD-80/Md-90 fuselage. > (The DC-9/MD-8x family were all assembled by hand. Manufacturing labor > was, in general, in excess of 60,000 hours per aircraft - but I don't know > how much of that was directly attributable to the fuselage assembly process > itself.) Assembled by hand? Nonsense. Douglas used an assembly line bringing together fuselage sections assembled elsewhere, like everyone else. Until the MD-90 came along, the top and bottom parts of the fuselage sections were the basic building blocks. With the MD-90, Douglas has switched the manufacturing process to one using fuselage barrel sections. This did lead to savings in manufacturing time and cost (sorry, I don't have numbers handy). This process now applies to both MD-80s and -90s, which are build on the same line. Stefano From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: spagiola Subject: Re: 777F References: <44k9k6$b9g@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World Bank Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:08 gt1086c@prism.gatech.edu (Gregory Glockner) wrote: > >> As for the 747-400F for FedEx, it will probably > >> never happen. They don't like their 747s now (they just don't fit their > >> operation) and will rid all of them in the next 5 years or so. > > FedEx's 747s all came from the buyout of Flying Tigers. To the best > of my knowledge, FedEx never bought any 747s outright; I'd suspect > that they were never all that interested in 747s. The 747's problem is that, with the type of cargo FedEx flies, it fills up way before it reaches max gross weight. I suspect this problem is even worse on the 747-400F, with its higher max take-off weight and similar volume (as the -100F/200F). This makes it an inefficient way to carry cargo. The two are much closer on the DC-10/MD-11 (hence FedEx's predilection for these types). Stefano From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu (Peter Hollingsworth) Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:09 > I believe one of the significant benifits to Douglas on the MD-95 is that > it IS a circular cross section, allowing automated manufacturing processes. > (The DC-9/MD-8x family were all assembled by hand. Manufacturing labor > was, in general, in excess of 60,000 hours per aircraft - but I don't know > how much of that was directly attributable to the fuselage assembly process > itself.) I don't know abpuit the MD-95, but the MD-90, which the MD-95 qualifies as a shortened version of has the same double bubble fuselage. My guess is the given the derivitive nature of the MD-95 is that it retains the same crossection as the erlier a/c. -- I am The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor. Destroyer of Worlds, Eliminator of populations, And the bane of Humanity. gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1630 From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: longer range stretched 747-400? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: stephen.nicoud@boeing.com Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:09 November 7, 1995 NEWS DIGEST ... 3. REUTER (Nov. 6) - Boeing is in talks with a number of its customers to investigate the market potential of a longer range, stretched version of its successful 747-400 aircraft, president Ron Woodard said. At a news conference in Amsterdam to sign a previously announced order for eight new 737-800 aircraft with Dutch airline Transavia, Woodard said Boeing aims to discover what the market is looking for in a revamped 747. "We're talking to a bunch of customers about what happens with this aircraft, and at this early stage it's clear there is some demand for a longer range 747. We would have to make this aircraft competitive with today's 747-400 series, so we've allocated people to look into this." 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. From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: 747-100 SUD References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:09 >>This is the first I have heard of -100 being fitted with the >>stretched upper deck. > >>I know that a number of -200 were remanufactured to -300 status by >>Boeing (KLM has a few, I think). > > KLM modified ten aircraft, whereas they only bought three -300s new. > UTA also had a pair of them, plus a single -300. The two JAL aircraft > are the only other SUDs I'm aware of. What is involved in stretching the upper deck ? Doesn't this require some heavy duty structural changes ? Doesn't this change the centre of gravity of the aircraft compared to the location of the wings ? Or can that be alleviated with judicious luggage/cargo placement ? As well, what is the economic rationale of spending large sums of money to modify an relatively old aircraft to add a few more seats (8 to 10 ?)? Or do those modifications also include the upgrading of engines and cockpit to enhance the fuel consumption figures to bring them up to par with more recent aircrafts ? From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-100 SUD References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:09 >What is involved in stretching the upper deck ? Doesn't this require some >heavy duty structural changes ? Doesn't this change the centre of gravity >of the aircraft compared to the location of the wings ? As far as I know, the differences between a late -200B and a -300 are pretty localized, so it can't be too huge a modification. The CG may not change all that much because a signifcant portion is far enough back to be over the wing. >As well, what is the economic rationale of spending large sums of money >to modify an relatively old aircraft to add a few more seats (8 to 10 ?)? As far as I know, the only aircraft that were modified were done when the -300 first came out, so they were modifying fairly new aircraft. It probably wouldn't be economical now. As for seats, roughly double the number upstairs -- before increasing pitch, United got five rows upstairs on a late -200B (they only have two; yes, I know their other -200Bs and the -100s only have four rows) and effectively ten rows on a -400 (which has the same upper deck as a -300 or an SUD). In a high density config, I could see that being another 40-50 seats or more. >Or do those modifications also include the upgrading of engines and cockpit >to enhance the fuel consumption figures to bring them up to par with more >recent aircrafts ? Some of the mods might have included MGTOW increases, which could include upgraded engines. However, as noted above, these aren't recent upgrades so it wasn't a matter of updating them. -- 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 Nov 9 02:19:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: MD-95 Structural Specs References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:10 According to my source at McDonnell Douglas in Long Beach, the MD-95 is: - A DC-9-34 fuselage and wing - 38" plug (2 frames) added forward of wing - BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 engines - MD-87 vertical stabilizer - MD-90 tail cone (screwdriver tail) - New fuselage/wing fairing - Deleted ventral airstair - MD-90 avionics (modified) The fuselage will be structurally identical to the DC-9-30 series, as will the wing, flaps, ailerons, and slats. There will still be a crease in the fuselage at the floor beam level, but different manufacturing techniques will allow the fuselage to be built in barrel sections (at Salt Lake City) rather than in upper and lower sections as it was on the DC-9 family. Apparently they looked at designing a new wing for the aircraft, but detemined that they would spend many millions of dollars on it, and would probably only save approximately 1% in cruise flight, thus it hardly seemed worth the investment. Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: A310, low visibility landing in Zurich, Switzerland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:10 >that. With a CAT III-appraoch the auto-pilot land the plane. Also if the >aircraft and aerodrome is equped with the right tools the aircraft taxies >itself of the runway. You don't them need any visibility. > This is the first time I've heard of an "auto-taxi" capability. I thought this was the real limiting factor in 0/0 landings. Can anybody elucidate? Jim B. ----------------------------------------------------- No auto-taxi. You CAN have 'roll-out-guidance' where the localizer is used to steer the aircraft along the center line of the runway while the auto-brake system brings the A/C to a stop. Systems in the works will provide the capability to taxi in limited visibility using GPS linked with on-board display of taxiways. This has been demonstrated with success. HOWEVER it is intended to provide LIMITED capability not zero. It intention is to prevent taxiway 'excursions' where the flight-crew member doing the driving gets lost among all the blue lights, so the emphasis is on increasing the safety of ground movements. Brian From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gallope@admin.curtin.edu.au Subject: Re: Cockpit noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Curtin University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:10 >-> Does anyone out there have any information regarding the amount of >-> cockpit noise there is in present day airliners such as >-> B747-100/200/300s, 747-400s and any other Boeing airliner information >-> you might have. >-> I'm looking for information that a layman can understand. Any help or >-> information you might have is most appreciated! The main noise is from airflow (ias). Could it be described as a continual SSSHHHHHHH or SSSSSSSHH ? Things get quieter as you go higher. When we had the 747-SP above 40,000 it was eerily quiet. Of course engine placement is an important factor. The 727 was quiet in the cockpit compared to the 747 which vibrates a lot at high power. TG From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: 727 with larger tail-top engine? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:10 The 727 with the trash can type hust kits is the Valsan (sp?) kit. I saw a Roadway Global Air -200F at LAX recently with them. Also, the ones with the larger intake are re-engined with RR Tays (if I 'm correct), and you'll notice that they don't have any external indication of a thrust reverser on the tailpipes. There was a private 727-100 (U.S> registered, Australian flag on the tai...very strange) at LAX on the same day I was there recently. Jennings From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Manuel.DeKlerck@ping.be (Manuel De Klerck) Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PING Belgium Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:11 Michael Carley wrote: >Colin Povey writes: >>I was wondering if you know why the Avro RJ rejional jets are >>so popular. I like the planes myself, but I thought that the >>four engines would dramaticially increase the cost of the planes. >Probably because the four engines make passengers feel more secure. Four (lighter) engines allow a lighter construction of the wings, so although the engines may cost more, overall cost is not increased. From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Airbus/Boeing pilot-aircraft interface paradigms. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:11 >As I understand it, Boeing seems to be more 'pilot-centred' in its >approach, while Airbus is more '(design) engineer-oriented'. Thus >Boeing generally grants the pilot ultimate authority, while Airbus >often allows the computer to over-ride the pilot. Also, Boeing >provides less ambiguous instrument feedback than Airbus, eg the >auto-throttle levers moves in a Boeing aircraft, not in an Airbus. Please note that there is another aircraft company a bit south of Seattle which also makes aircraft :). The design flight decks which recognize that it is the flight crew who needs to make the ultimate decision is common to both Boeing and Douglas. A common design feature, for example, is that the throttles move when the thrust manavement system changes the thrust settings. The flight crew then, is aware of what the aircraft systems are commanding. Airbus felt that this was an archaic design requirement in that the flight crew, if they were interested, could see what was happening by monitoring flight displays. This saved cost and weight in that autothrottle servo systems would not have to be included in the flight deck design. In my opinion this design feature resulted in an incident where a TAROM aircraft had a autothrottle problem and one throttle failed to respond properly. This left one engine in take-off thrust setting while the other retarded in an attempt to maintain the commanded airspeed. This resulted in a failure of the flight crew to maintain control of the aircraft and it crashed, killing all aboard. As an avionics systems engineer, I would be very uncomfortable to design a system where I, sitting in my office, on the ground, thought that I knew more about what the flight crew needed to do with their aircraft then they did. The flight crew is always the first at the scene of an accident and they should have the authority to do what their judgment says needs to be done without hitting artificially imposed barriers. Brian Reynolds From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus/Boeing pilot-aircraft interface paradigms. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:11 >Airbus felt that [moving throttles] was an archaic design ... >In my opinion this design feature resulted in an incident where a >TAROM aircraft had a autothrottle problem and one throttle failed >to respond properly. An interesting theory, with one little flaw -- the accident aircraft in the TAROM crash was an A310, but the throttles that don't move as the autothrottles work wasn't introduced until the A320. -- 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 Nov 9 02:19:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lmm@doc.ntu.ac.uk (Mr L McManus) Subject: HELP Air turbulance Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Nottingham Trent University, DOC. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:11 I have just returned from the USA and the flight was a little bumpie! I wish to gain more knowledge of air turbulance and why it can affect something as massive as a 767. I understand a little on air density and something of aerodynamics, but wish to become better educated and so not be as worried when my tea joins me on my seat I'd appreciate some references to this problem but would appreciate a simple explanation without the complex fluid dynamics maths. Thanks for any help Leo McManus Computing Dept Nottingham Trent University UK Ext 2090 . From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bds4798@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com (R. Brian dosSantos) Subject: Re: Help: 737-300 Max Air Speed ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:12 jkd214@aol.com (JKD214) writes: >I an currently working on a product for a Boeing 737-700 aircraft. My >design requirements seem a bit excessive and are driving my cost through >the roof. I am questing the max air speed of this aircraft. I would like >to know the max air speed of this aircraft if any one knows. If any Boeing >engineers are reading this please disreguard (Al, Cathy, Tom). This has got to be the strangest request I have ever seen from a design engineer. Why are you asking people not involved in the design what the design parameters are? I can speculate on all kinds of reasons for this, some that favor you and others that don't. I won't speculate because I really want to know why you've resorted to this approach. R. Brian dos Santos --- BCAG, 737X Flight Controls | "If you pick up a starving dog and ring:206.237.6952 | make him prosperous, he will not bite zing:bds4798@mesx01.ca.boeing.com| you. This is the principal difference 102064.776@compuserve.com | between a dog and a man."--Mark Twain From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Keith Edmunds Subject: Re: Help: 737-300 Max Air Speed ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: kae@itworks.demon.co.uk Organization: Midnite Hax Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:12 OK, I'll buy it: why don't you want answers from Boeing engineers? Surely if anyone knows the answer, they do? Or don't you believe them? ------------- Keith Edmunds Reading, UK ------------- From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Paul Michaels Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:12 >All Boeing a/c up until the 777 were built with the "double bubble" >fuselage. airbus has always used circular crossections, that is one of the >reasons for the added width on the A319/320/321 series over the Boeing >narrowbodies. Also all Boeing comercial narrowbodies have identical >fuselage cross sections in the constant, none wing body sections (the >717/C135 series, was a solely military a/c). Without access to the documentation, I'm certain that Airbus single aisle fuselages are double-bubble, though its not as pronounced as Boeing/Douglas machines. The twin aisles are circular. Paul ---------/^\^\ /^/^)----------Paul Michaels \ \ \/ / / Milford Haven, Wales \#-#/_/_/__ Email: ----------<"@">>>====~---------paul@mides.celtic.co.uk From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:12 Where did you hear that the MD-95 is going to have a circular cross-section? I spoke with someone at McDD the other day, and he said that the -95 will be a DC-9-30 airframe (including the wing) with the tall tail of the MD-87, MD-90 avionics, and the new BMW/RR engines. To make a circular cross-section fuselage would require a complete re-design of the entire airplane from stem to stern, and I haven't heard anything about them doing that. I also wonder that if by doing that, they could still fly it on the original type certificate?? Sort of like the new -600/700/800 models of the 737. They're just like the older ones, except for a re-designed wing, bigger tail, new engine nacells and pylons, different gear, but oh, I guess the tailplane incidence screw jack is the same, so it can go on the old ticket :)) Just curious, Jennings Heilig From kls Thu Nov 9 02:19:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: tjinwj@merlion.singnet.com.sg (Irving Tjin) Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Nov 95 02:19:13 Brian A. Reynolds (bareynol@cca.rockwell.com) wrote: : Karl Swartz wrote: : The MD-80 has a very distinct crease where its two lobes join. : ---------------------------------------- : The two lobes are joined by the floor panels. The design of the upper : lobe allows for maximum fuselage diameter at the PAX elbows. While this I would say that the reason for applying a double-bubble x-section is to increase the underfloor hold capacity for a given cabin width and upper lobe diameter. : I believe one of the significant benifits to Douglas on the MD-95 is that : it IS a circular cross section, allowing automated manufacturing processes. : (The DC-9/MD-8x family were all assembled by hand. Manufacturing labor As far as I know, MDC is not changing the basic DC9/MD80/MD90 fuselage cross-section and overall structural layout for the MD95. That's the whole idea - well, part of it anyway - behind the derivative concept. Developing a new cross-section would be too expensive. Incidentally, this double-bubble design will give the MD95 a larger cargo capacity (volume) than its circular x-section competitors. Irving Tjin From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: Re: 747-100 SUD References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:18 According to an old issue of Aviation Week, the SUD conversion was not authorised for the old -100 series. I believe there were some weight issues. From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Singapore ordered 34+43 B777s with Trent engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:19 Singapore Airlines (SIA) announced today (Nov 14th) its order of 77 B777-200Bs (way to many sevens, :-), of which 34 are firm orders and 43 are options. If all the options are converted, the order will worth up to US $12.7 billion. Also, SIA has selected Rolls-Royce Trent engines to power the new B777. This order has significantly increased Rolls' B777 market share from a dismal 17% to a respectable 30% (P&W now has 43% and GE 27%). This is a big blow to P&W since SIA is currently the largest PW4000 customer, and it's a big surprise that SIA did not select the PW4084. This is also a big vote of confidence for Rolls-Royce. With SIA's frequent fleet renewal, SIA needs to have aircraft that are re-marketable. In the past, Rolls-powered B747 are not highly re-marketable. For years, SIA has used big aircraft orders for publicity. I wonder why SIA did not order 35, one more than the United order, so that it could have claimed to be the largest B777 order. Boeing must have made a very sweet deal to convince SIA to increase its original intent of ordering only 17 aircraft plus 16 options. I believe many of the order will later be converted to the -300 and -100X. I'll not be surprised that SIA may eventually reduce its A340 orders and use the -100X instead. SIA has never been shy in dumping a fleet. In the past 15 years, it has dumped the DC-10-30, A300B4, B727, and the B757, all at relatively early age (some less than three, four years old). In October, SIA became the largest B747-400 operator; now it seems that it wants to be the largest B777 operator. Personally, I really think Airbus mis-sized the A330 that's why it's not selling well. (Actually, when I first learned about the B777, I thought it was a bit too big, and I still think it's too big for SIA to replace its A310s.) Airbus has practically lost the three-year advantage the A330/A340 has over the B777. Now, Boeing has almost the same number of B777 orders as Airbus has the A330/340 orders. I'm a skeptic of using a twin over the Pacific Ocean, nevertheless, I'm really impressed by the marketing of the B777. Airbus did make a small coup. Gulf Air, which has cancelled its B777 order earlier this year, ordered the A330 yesterday. >From what I remember, this is the third time in the past two years that Airbus had prematurely announced its lead in major orders which Airbus eventually failed to secure. The three are Saudia, ValuJet, and the SIA one. One last note: I'm glad the order came thru, because I've predicted SIA's B777 order in e-mail to several people. When Airbus announced its intention to launch the A330M10 last week, I thought my prediction was in jeopardy. My next prediction: Malaysia is going to order the B777, too. No doubt the B777 is going to rule in Asia. Boeing would love too see the B777 to do well in the U.S. as it does in Asia. Boeing and Airbus will fiercely compete for the American and Delta orders. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: TAROM A310 Incident (was Airbus/Boeing pilot-aircraft interface) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:20 AvWeek 17 April 1995 The Romanian team investigating the probable cause of the March 31 crash of a Tarom A310 transport is focusing on the combination of an engine autothrottle system failure that generated asymetrical power setting and on the pilots' apparent failure to react quickly to the developing emergency. When the autothrottle was set to climb thrust, the Digiatl Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) showed the right engine remaining at takeoff thrust, while the left engine's thust reduced to idle over a 42-second period. Investigators speculated that the right throttle may have been mechanically jammed and the authrottle electric motor continued applying force through a slipping clutch to the jammed right throttle, while the left clutch was drawing its throttle to idle. "We are amazed. We do not understand (what happened); the roots of the accident could be somewhere else. The asymmetrical thrust situation developed slowly, giving the pilots enough time to identify the failure and act accordinly" an A310 French pilot said. The pilot added the A310 is not equipped with fly-by-wire controls and that the aircraft has a conventional yoke - two features that contribute to giving the pilots the tactile feel of developing asymetcial engine power. --------------------------------------------------------------- Commentary. I have in this forum and others used throttle movement as an example of good human factors design as it provides a clear indication of what the automatic system is attempting to do. But alas, here is a case of where, apparently, the left throttle was at flight idle but the right remained at takeoff thrust setting. Because of other factors, the flight crew failed (or was not provided the correct information) to recognize what was happening in time to break the chain. (The weather was also a factor, "due to poor visibility and heavy snow, the pilots had no visual horizon reference.") This accident could have happened in anyones flight deck (assuing that the mechanics of how throttle lever position is conveyed to the engines is similar). I appologize for making the generalization from an A310 incident to the later fully automated flight deck design of the modern Airbus aircraft. Brian p.s. In the Douglas implementation of autothrottles (and I think also for Boeing), it is the actual position of the throttle lever which is used as the throttle command. A slip clutch is provided so that the flight crew can override a run-away servo motor. In addition, the autothrottle system also has to release a brake in order to drive the throttle levers. The drawing show in the AvWeek article is generally consistent with this scheme. So increase friction in the mechanical connection between the throttle levers and the engines could have been overridden by the action of the flight crew, but still been too high for the servo system to drive against. "Seconds before the aircraft impacted the ground, both engines were at idle thrust, indicating the pilots then were acting to eliminate asymmetrical poser condition and were trying to restore a normal flight pattern." I hope that this has cleared up any confusion my original posting may have caused. From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) Subject: Re: A310, low visibility landing in Zurich, Switzerland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:20 In Jim Ballentine writes: >ajvdplas@pi.net wrote: >> With a CAT III-appraoch the auto-pilot land the plane. Also if the >>aircraft and aerodrome is equped with the right tools the aircraft >>taxies itself of the runway. You don't them need any visibility. >This is the first time I've heard of an "auto-taxi" capability. I >thought this was the real limiting factor in 0/0 landings. Can anybody elucidate? It is the first I have heard also. When one of the airlines was testing the CAT III system. They would land at Sea-Tac and come to a full stop automatically with the nosewheel on the runway centerline. I think the Port Police had to go out and either take pictures or observe it for verification, but the plane never turned off that centerline. Regards, Lou. From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: stephen@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) Subject: GE90/Boeing 777 Receives FAA Certification Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:20 On November 9, 1995, GE announced the the GE90-engined 777 has received FAA certification. For more info read GE's press announcement on http://www.ge.com/geae/news/releases/geae-73.html 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. From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:21 jheilig@gate.net writes: >According to my source at McDonnell Douglas in Long Beach, the MD-95 is: > - A DC-9-34 fuselage and wing > - 38" plug (2 frames) added forward of wing > - BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 engines > - MD-87 vertical stabilizer > - MD-90 tail cone (screwdriver tail) > - New fuselage/wing fairing > - Deleted ventral airstair > - MD-90 avionics (modified) OK, so where's the new model? Airbus & Boeing would consider this kind of change at best a new series number. For these manufacturers a change in model number indicates pretty major differences in configuration, particularly Boeing where there isn't any comonality in engine configuration between models. I'd have thought changes like the removing the ventral airstair and improving the avionics didn't even justify a change in series number. Is there any particular reason why MDD didn't take the DC-9-30 series or one of the MD-80s and re-engine it? -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: dms1002@hermes.cam.ac.uk (D.M. Shurz) Subject: Re: New A330/340 models References: <480il4$j9t@sphinx.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:21 In article <480il4$j9t@sphinx.Stanford.EDU> rna@sphinx.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >Yesterday's (Nov 9) Financial Times mentioned Airbus was trying to go ahead >with two new versions of the A330/A340. One would be a shrink of the A330, >something called the A330M10, designed to fly 6000 miles (presumably 10 >stands for 10,000km?). The other would be a stretch of the A340 to carry >370 passengers in typical configuration (sounds like a competitor for the >777-200/300). >The A330M10 may be the long mooted A300 replacement, depending on how >short the shrink is. Anyone know anymore? As far as I can understand the rationale is that in the short term the A330M10 is a 767-300ER competitor, as Airbus feel that this is a market segment they should be in, and the range of the A310-300 cannot compete, but I would imagine that the next intention would be that the plane could be further adapted with phaseout of both the A300 and A310. Daniel From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: richard@rmit.edu.au (Richard A. Muirden) Subject: Re: 777 folding wing (was: Delta dumps the L1011) References: <47lve2$etj@kragar.kei.com> <4809l2$3db@kragar.kei.com> <480hdn$j7c@sphinx.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:21 I had some email from a friend at Boeing who confirmed that Boeing have stored the folding wing option away in deep storage and it maybe won't appear again. Pity that. - -richard -- Richard A. Muirden, Sys. Admin |Fan of Shostakovich, "Star Trek" and Aircraft! Mailto: richard@rmit.EDU.AU |Fly the Friendly Skies of United Airlines ! Phone: (+61 3) 9660 3814 |I created alt.fan.shostakovich! (no boast!) http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard |Can *YOU* beat my 120 Shost CD's? :-) * 1995: Remembering 20 years since the death of Shostakovich (1906-75) * From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bernies@ice.net.au (Bernie Samms) Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NetSpace Online Systems Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:22 In article , Manuel.DeKlerck@ping.be says... >Michael Carley wrote: >>Colin Povey writes: > >>>I was wondering if you know why the Avro RJ rejional jets are >>>so popular. I like the planes myself, but I thought that the >>>four engines would dramaticially increase the cost of the planes. >>Probably because the four engines make passengers feel more secure. >Four (lighter) engines allow a lighter construction of the wings, so >although the engines may cost more, overall cost is not increased. The secret is quiet (cheap?) operation from low power engines. Personally, I hate the things. They are slower (in BAE146 format) in my Aussie travels and despatch rate with Ansett Australia, as far as my experience goes, is very poor. I feel more secure in a good old Boeing 737, 727 or even a DC9. Maybe the newer Avro RJ is improved? From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: PW JT-8D Cruise Parameters for MD88 and B-727 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: 14 Nov 95 14:46:22 >First of all, my question is... what are these numbers?!? ... 1990-2000? 1990 is 1.990; 2000 is 2.000. > E.P.R. is usually around 1.00 or so. With the engine shutdown it is. The EPR indicator dial starts at 1.0 and goes up to 2.6. Takeoff power is usually around 2.0. >JT8D engines (at least the ones I work on), >don't burn this much fuel, even at T/O. The fuel flow numbers are in pounds per hour. The JT8 burns about 1,000 pph at idle and the indicator reads from 500 pph to 12,000 pph. The numbers come from engine trend reporting logs from airplanes in cruise. To clarify some of the other numbers. N1 is in percent. EGT is in degrees Celsius Fuel Flow is pounds per hour N2 is in percent. Oil Temp is in degrees Celsius Oil Pressure is PSI. Hope this clears it up some. Dave Visit the L-1011 page at http://users.aol.com/tristar500/l1011/ From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gaia1@aol.com (Gaia 1) Subject: hydrogen powered planes 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: 14 Nov 95 14:46:22 When is the aviation industry going to be serious about the looming shortage of fossil fuels and their disastrous effects on the atmosphere-- CO2 contributes over 59% of the greenhouse gases to global warming? When is the new airplane going to be reinvented? So much is happening with the reinvention of the automobile. In 1957 NASA already tested a hydrogen powered engine in order to find a new powerplant for a super spyplane that would escape detection. Astronauts take hydrogen and oxygen into space for their electricity needs and their H2O. It seems that Germany and Japan are ahead of the US in respect to research in the use of hydrogen, not only as an industrial product but also as a transportation fuel. How long have particulalry those communities that suffer most from large airports with their concomitant noise, land, water and airpollution wait for a fuel cell powered airplane???? Dr. Frans C. Verhagen, energy sociologist, New York City. 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 Tue Nov 14 14:46:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: QUESTION: Boeing subcontracting policy? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Organization: University of Manchester Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:23 Could anyone help me on the following (perhaps someone from Boeing who reads this group)? The first editorial in the November 6 edition of AW&ST states that "The Seattle planemaker [ie Boeing] subcontracts about 15% of each transport by value" (p. 86). The July 24, 1995 issue of the same journal states that "Boeing plans to reduce the in-house content of its transports from 52% to 48% over the next three to five years" (p. 33). How can these two statements be reconciled? Is there a mistake somewhere or do the two statements not refer to the same thing? Cheers, -- Alain Deckers Tel: +44 (0)161 275 5943 (direct) PREST Fax: +44(0)161 275 5943 University of Manchester Alternative email: mbzalgd@afs.mcc.ac.uk Manchester M13 9PL, UK From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: QUESTION: Boeing subcontracting policy? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:23 >The first editorial in the November 6 edition of AW&ST states that >"The Seattle planemaker [ie Boeing] subcontracts about 15% of each >transport by value" (p. 86). The July 24, 1995 issue of the same >journal states that "Boeing plans to reduce the in-house content of >its transports from 52% to 48% over the next three to five years" (p >33). >How can these two statements be reconciled? Is there a mistake >somewhere or do the two statements not refer to the same thing? The latter figures seem awfully low compared to what I've heard, though I may be misremembering. In any case, I suspect they key is that the latter figures do not indicate how they were measures, whereas the other references specifically says "by value." Much of the 747 fuselage, for example, and I think the 767 too, is made by subcontractors. By weight or volume, that accounts for a large chunk of airplane, but by value it's a much smaller percentage. -- 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 Nov 14 14:46:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: Marshal Perlman Subject: Boeings Twin Engine 727 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: poster Organization: Florida Institute of Technology / School of Aeronautics Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:23 Does anyone have any information or thoughts on the plan that Boeing offered TWA (?) to "Twin-ize" their 727 fleet --- or any 727 for that matter. I know this sounds like an April Fool's day joke, but it is true. They want to re-engine #1 and #3 [stage 3 I would assume] and remove #2. Thanks in advance! -- Marshal Perlman (http://www.fit.edu/~perlman) Florida Institute of Technology School of Aeronautics Melbourne, Florida (28.06N 80.38W) Pager/Voice Mail: (800) 938-5187 From kls Tue Nov 14 14:46:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: korfgen@cadvision.com (K.P. Koerfgen) Subject: Re: ROLLS ROYCE TRENT 800's ON 777's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Koerfgen, Calgary AB Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Nov 95 14:46:23 >Also, which carriers have >selected the Trents to power their 777's? > > Thornton, I work for one, Emirates in Dubai in the Persian Gulf region. A launch customer is not necessarily the customer that gets the first airplane. A launch customer is the customer that committed itself to a new design, but it is possible that a later customer will actually receive the first airplane. Rgds, Kurt From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bruce.e.oneel.1@gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce O'Neel) Subject: McDonnell Douglas Web site Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:38 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA In InfoWorld, Nov 13 1995, there is a case study on page 67 which talks about Douglas Aircraft Corp's web site (http://www.dac.mdc.com). If you have a password for it, you can get a full set of maintenance documents for McD aircraft. The username/password is tied into a database which shows which aircraft you have and lets you choose from the maintence docs for them. This saves moving large amounts of paper around, or, rolls of microfilm. I, of course, can't try it. :-( bruce From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Help: 737-300 Max Air Speed ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:38 JKD214 wrote: >I an currently working on a product for a Boeing 737-700 aircraft. My >design requirements seem a bit excessive and are driving my cost through >the roof. I am questing the max air speed of this aircraft. I would like >to know the max air speed of this aircraft if any one knows. If any Boeing >engineers are reading this please disreguard (Al, Cathy, Tom). I'm a Boeing design engineer, but I'm afraid I can't disregard this question. It gives me the feeling that you are intending to cut some really potentially nasty corners with your product, thereby possibly endangering my aircraft at a time when every little bit would help, near top speed. I guess the question is how fast can the airplane be going, with you and your mother onboard, and have your part fail? How much money are you going to save? Is it worth it? Are you willing to risk being a party to some really ugly litigation after the crash? Now it is obvious, with a little thought, that your part is probably structural. Otherwise, the airspeed, and the dynamic loads created by the airspeed, would most likely be irrelevant to your design. So, we aren't talking about seatback tables here. If you can't do the design to the requirements for the money you bid, see your lawyer and back out of the contract and let someone else in there who can do the job. Please understand that the above is not the official position of the Boeing Company. It would take them two weeks and 200 pages to give you that position. This is just my opinion. Maximum airspeed is a pretty knotty question. There is Maximum Operating Velocity, Maximum Operating Mach Number, Dive Velocity, Never Exceed Velocity, etc. And those are all within the certified operating envelope of the airplane, I think (depending on how you want to demonstrate Vne). We haven't even talked about out of the ordinary stuff, yet. Now, don't misunderstand, the airplane is highly unlikely to ever go faster than Vdive, but you can get into some really interesting attitudes that will affect local Mach numbers and dynamic loads on various parts. In short, believe the number you were given, design to the requirement, and if at all possible, add in a little extra capability to bring that airplane back if it ever gets in trouble. Engineers just like you have been doing that for over 75 years. We have a great tradition here. We do, in fact, build the world's finest heavy jet transports. Don't jeapardize those people, that airplane, or the industry just to save yourself some money. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: flynn@pncl.co.uk (chris flynn) Subject: Re: PW JT-8D Cruise Parameters for MD88 and B-727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pinnacle Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:39 tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) wrote: >>First of all, my question is... what are these numbers?!? ... 1990-2000? >1990 is 1.990; 2000 is 2.000. >> E.P.R. is usually around 1.00 or so. >With the engine shutdown it is. The EPR indicator dial starts at 1.0 and >goes up to 2.6. Takeoff power is usually around 2.0. Does the 727 have a different 8D? I know the -15 quite well (I'm licensed on it) and epr at max power is around 1.6. From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:39 In article , gaia1@aol.com (Gaia 1) wrote: > When is the aviation industry going to be serious about the looming > shortage of fossil fuels and their disastrous effects on the atmosphere-- > CO2 contributes over 59% of the greenhouse gases to global warming? > > How long have particulalry those communities that suffer most from large > airports with their concomitant noise, land, water and airpollution wait > for a fuel cell powered airplane???? > -- Hydrogen is a non-starter for aircraft. It takes more fossil energy to produce the liquid hydrogen required for aircraft than it does to just burn the fossil fuel in the aircraft turbines. So it does not save fossil fuel. The pollution produced producing the liquid hydrogen is probably worse than that produced by the fossil fuel burning aircraft. It is just moved to a different place. If excess nuclear fuel sources were available, then they could be used to make the hydrogen. Even then it would be better to use the nuclear energy for ground use to save fossil fuel. Then when you still have excess nuclear energy on hand, you might use it for hydrogen production for mobile use. Since nuclear energy availability looks grim, hydrogen is not on the horizon. If you want to use the hydrogen floating in the oceans, one can grasp the difficulty of extracting it by thinking of water as rusted hydrogen. ( a thought I learned from an unknown Princeton physics professor about 20 years ago) Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:39 Gaia 1 (gaia1@aol.com) wrote: : When is the aviation industry going to be serious about the looming : shortage of fossil fuels and their disastrous effects on the atmosphere-- : CO2 contributes over 59% of the greenhouse gases to global warming? : In 1957 NASA already tested a hydrogen powered engine in order to find a : new powerplant for a super spyplane that would escape detection. : Astronauts take hydrogen and oxygen into space for their electricity needs : and their H2O. It seems that Germany and Japan are ahead of the US in : respect to research in the use of hydrogen, not only as an industrial : product but also as a transportation fuel. I'm sure there are substantial discussions of the question, but isn't the freeing of hydrogen without producing "green-house" gases a problem? I don't know if "environmentalists" are up to making a choice between the destructive aspects of hydroelectric development and of thermal electric power production. Likewise, I am not sure of the aggregate effects on the atmosphere of nuclear power production (it sure need not contaminate the atmosphere with radioactive materials, but boy, what to do with the fission products?). I agree with the generality that we are not doing enough to protect the environment, but I am not at all sure that some simple trick like hydrogen propelled aircract can give us a net gain. Gerry From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: felix@lightning.seas.ucla.edu (Felix R. Villatuya) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: School of Engineering & Applied Science, UCLA. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:40 Don Stokes (Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz) wrote: : jheilig@gate.net writes: : >According to my source at McDonnell Douglas in Long Beach, the MD-95 is: ... : OK, so where's the new model? Airbus & Boeing would consider this kind of : change at best a new series number. For these manufacturers a change in : model number indicates pretty major differences in configuration, : particularly Boeing where there isn't any comonality in engine configuration : between models. : I'd have thought changes like the removing the ventral airstair and improving : the avionics didn't even justify a change in series number. Is there any : particular reason why MDD didn't take the DC-9-30 series or one of the MD-80s : and re-engine it? I guess McDonnell Douglas didn't follow Boeing's definition. The MD-80 didn't have a different engine configuration from the DC-9 either. I believe the MD-80 was in fact a DC-9-80 (or Super 80). Technically speaking, the MD-95 could be called the DC-9-95. Rainier -- Felix Rainier Villatuya felix@seas.ucla.edu frv@ucla.edu "Life is not at all that bad my friend" From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:40 >OK, so where's the new model? Airbus & Boeing would consider this kind of >change at best a new series number. For these manufacturers a change in >model number indicates pretty major differences in configuration, >particularly Boeing where there isn't any comonality in engine configuration >between models. I'm not sure I'd use Boeing as a paragon of logic in model numbers, at least not at too fine a level, and considering engines in particular can get to be a bit silly. Consider the following: Despite different designations, a 757-222 and 757-232 are quite similar, just built for different airlines (United and Delta, respectively). Same general config, same PW2037 engines, etc. The more similarly numbered 757-222 and 757-223 are considerably more divergent, since the latter (built for American) has Rolls- Royce RB.211-535 engines. You can't tell which engine a 757-24A(PF) has, since UPS switched from the PW2040 on the earlier ones to the RB.211-535 on the later ones, but they're all the same model. I don't really mean to pick on the 757 here -- there are lots of examples of Boeing designations that don't uniquely identify the engine (a 747-238B could be either JT9D or RB.211, a 767-332 could be either CF6-80A2 or PW4060, ad nauseum). I don't quite understand your comment "there isn't any comonality in engine configuration between models" with regard to Boeing. If you mean different series within a type, the 737-300, -400, and -500, all of which can use the same CFM56-3C1 engine (amongst other variants) contradict your point. Across types, the JT8D-15 and -17 are used on both the 727-200 Advanced and 737-200 Advanced. The newer 767s and the 747-400 even share the same nacelle and pylon for engines from the same manufacturer. Doesn't seem to me like engines have much to do with it. Airbus designations do encode the engine choice in a fairly reasonable manner. For example, an A320-211 has CFM56 engines while an A320-231 has IAE V2500 engines. An A320-232 also has V2500s, albeit a different model, hence the different designations. >I'd have thought changes like the removing the ventral airstair and improving >the avionics didn't even justify a change in series number. There's considerably more to the MD-95 than that -- new engines, many revised and updated systems from the MD-90, etc. I'm not sure it's all that much less of a change than the MD-11 or 747-400 were compared to their predecessors. >Is there any particular reason why MDD didn't take the DC-9-30 series >or one of the MD-80s and re-engine it? Because a simple re-engined DC-9-30 wouldn't have had all the other improvements that the MD-95 has besides engines, while a re-engined MD-80 (absent any other changes) would have been too big and too expensive for the market at which the MD-95 is targeted. -- 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 Nov 16 03:48:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:40 OK - stand corrected on the circulary fuselage. Got confused with the 'barrel section' studies done in late '80s which documented productivity improvements to be gain with a circular cross-section. ASSUMED (bad engineer bad engineer) that DAC would take advantage of having to build new tooling to gain these improvements. The study focused on productivity improvements and the issue of more cargo capacity with a double lobe was not part of the reports that I saw - but it is a significant point for not changing the concept. I also stand corrected that not all Air Bus aircraft are alike. Brian From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: MAINT Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BrainTree Ltd. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:40 The MD-95 is nothing more than a slightly lengthened/shortened (I can't remember which) DC-9-30 with RR/BMW engines. Douglas can't afford to make major changes, like changing the fuselage cross section. -Dave Lednicer dave@amiwest.com From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:41 In article , bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) wrote: > > Karl Swartz wrote: > > The MD-80 has a very distinct crease where its two lobes join. > ---------------------------------------- > > The two lobes are joined by the floor panels. The design of the upper > lobe allows for maximum fuselage diameter at the PAX elbows. While this > was good for the passengers, it did result in a very labor intensive > manufacturing process. > > I believe one of the significant benifits to Douglas on the MD-95 is that > it IS a circular cross section, allowing automated manufacturing processes. > All DC-9's, MD-80's, MD-90's and the MD-95 have identical fuselage cross sections. They are a 'double-bubble' design. The portion above the floor has a circular cross section down to the floor. The portion below the floor has a circular cross section up to the floor. The radii below and above the floors are different. -- Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Flying Pencils (was:What's wrong with MD-11?) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:41 Paul Michaels wrote: > >Without access to the documentation, I'm certain that Airbus single >aisle fuselages are double-bubble, though its not as pronounced as >Boeing/Douglas machines. >The twin aisles are circular. Correct. And I *do* have references at hand. :-) Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: com@apollo31.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Commissaire) Subject: Need info about TCAS and GPWS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:41 I am currently tying to put together some paperwork about TCAS and GPWS. Would you know any good publications dealing with this ? Thanks. Christian. From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Vincent Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines A310 replacement References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:41 Hot off the press!!! SIA has awarded the US$12.7 billion order to Boeing for 77 Boeing 777s. 34 are are firm orders while the rest remain options. Of this order, 6 firm orders and 10 options are for Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise (Alitalia 767-300 leases?). The most amazing part of thr order is that this predominantly Pratt and Whitney operator has finally opted for Rolls Royce engines. The report has also stated that SIA is keen on the Boeing 777-100s for non-stop services to Los Angeles.It was not stated as to when deliveries were to begin. I cannot wait to travel on one of these aircraft! Vern From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mr Lih-Yenn Ong Subject: Re: Singapore ordered 34+43 B777s with Trent engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Departmeny of Mech. Eng., Imperial College, London Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:42 In a separate statement issued in the S'pore Business Times, the reason given for selecting B777 is its capacity to fly non-stop from S'pore to L.A./S.F. I am just wondering what the FAA rulings with regards to the use of twin engines to cover such a long route over the water are. What are the contigency plans (made by the designer) if one of the engines failed in the midst of the flight across the Pacific? Would also appreciate if the variuos engine manufacturers could comment on the reliability of their engines. Thanks in advance. __ Mr Lih-Yenn Ong, Research Student Thermofluids Section Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Peter Herrmann) Subject: Re: Singapore ordered 34+43 B777s with Trent engines 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: 16 Nov 95 03:48:42 In article , Andrew Chuang writes: |>Singapore Airlines (SIA) announced today (Nov 14th) its order of 77 |>B777-200Bs (way to many sevens, :-), of which 34 are firm orders and |>43 are options. If all the options are converted, the order will |>worth up to US $12.7 billion. .. |>For years, SIA has used big aircraft orders for publicity. I wonder why |>SIA did not order 35, one more than the United order, so that it could have |>claimed to be the largest B777 order. Boeing must have made a very sweet Hereabout are rumors that UA will pass some of their B777s to LH which will replace their B747-200s. In that case SIA would indeed have the largest B777 fleet. |>deal to convince SIA to increase its original intent of ordering only 17 |>aircraft plus 16 options. I believe many of the order will later be |>converted to the -300 and -100X. I'll not be surprised that SIA may |>eventually reduce its A340 orders and use the -100X instead. Aren't they conservative about long-range ETOPS operations? Therefore I think that they rather replace some A340-300s by A340-8000s. .. |>Personally, I really think Airbus mis-sized the A330 that's why it's not |>selling well. Agreed! And they failed to offer a stretched A330 which can compete against the B777-300 which BTW was demanded by Cathay (and others) several years ago. Currently, SIA uses B747-300s and B747-400s on relative short routes to Asian and Australian destinations to which the B777-300 fits better than anything offered by Airbus (or MDD). Therefore their choice seems straight-forward. .. |>Airbus did make a small coup. Gulf Air, which |>has cancelled its B777 order earlier this year, ordered the A330 |>yesterday. Is the number of six orders correct ? .. |>One last note: I'm glad the order came thru, because I've predicted SIA's |>B777 order in e-mail to several people. When Airbus announced its |>intention to launch the A330M10 last week, I thought my prediction was in |>jeopardy. My next prediction: Malaysia is going to order the B777, too. |>No doubt the B777 is going to rule in Asia. Boeing would love too see the |>B777 to do well in the U.S. as it does in Asia. Boeing and Airbus will |>fiercely compete for the American and Delta orders. |> |>-- |> H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org |> I am astonished about the moment of the SIA order. Currently, a German mixed political and economical delegation of high rank headed by Federal Chancellor Kohl is in Asia and will visit Singapore within the next days. Due to the human rights situation in China the journey is heavily criticized in Germany. In order to make it at least an economical success, the politicians might push the representatives of Daimler-Benz Aerospace and Airbus to make SIA a better offer. Might it be that SIA tries to strengthen the pressure on Airbus and therefore makes the announcement now and not after the visit? 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 Thu Nov 16 03:48:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: Re: Singapore ordered 34+43 B777s with Trent engines 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: 16 Nov 95 03:48:42 In article chuanga@iia2.org "Andrew Chuang" writes: > Singapore Airlines (SIA) announced today (Nov 14th) its order of 77 > B777-200Bs (way to many sevens, :-), of which 34 are firm orders and > 43 are options. If all the options are converted, the order will Getting on a number tangent here... Considering how the number `8' is supposed to be very auspicous in Chinese culture, Boeing should call their next airliner the `888'! Hmmm... and Airbus is launching the 340-`8'000? -Niels (remembering that when Air Canada started service to Singapore {in `88?} the flight number was `888'). From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msagara@rmii.com (Martin Sagara) Subject: Air/Space Museum Director Wanted - Denver, CO Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:43 The Wings Over The Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver, Colorado is seeking applicants with strong experience or interest in aerospace/history subjects for the position of Museum Director. The Wings Over The Rockies Museum is operated by a non-profit foundation dedicated to the preservation, recording and restoration of aircraft & aerospace artifacts and public education in the subjects of aerospace history and technology with an emphasis on Colorado's contribution to the aviation & space fields. The Director position is a full-time unpaid volunteer job. Director position duties include: 1) Assisting the Board of Directors in carrying out the Museum's Mission Statement objectives. 2) Providing leadership, team-building, and organizational support for the Museum's staff and volunteers. 3) Identifying & leveraging volunteer & staff skill resources. 4) Coordinating the development of Museum exhibits. 5) Supporting aircraft/artifact restoration activities. 6) Developing Museum promotion/advertising campaigns and identifying opportunities for community involvement. 7) Cultivating relationships with corporate sponsors. 8) Serving as a point-of-contact for public relations activities. 9) Developing grant proposals and performing administrative functions for the acquisition of aircraft and artifacts. 10) Coordinating the daily operational activities of the Museum including retail operations, building maintenance, staff scheduling and all other related business functions. 11) Working with city, state and Federal Government agencies in activities related to the Museum's development. The ideal candidate would be a high-energy retiree and former aerospace company/airline executive, military officer/enlisted, aerospace-related engineer/technologist, professional pilot, museum director, educator, historian, journalist, government or business executive. Aviation/history experience is highly desired but not necessary. A strong interest in aviation/space history and technology IS required. The position requires excellent business management, organizational and decision making skills. The candidate must also have excellent communication skills, strong follow-through habits and work well with people of diverse backgrounds. Experience with non-profit organizations is a plus. This is a unique opportunity to build a world-class educational, preservation and historical facility that will serve the public for years to come. The Wings Over The Rockies Museum is moving into its second year of operation and is a dynamic organization that is seeking to build itself into the premier scientific/historical/educational facility in the state of Colorado. For more information or to submit resumes, please contact Mr. Russ Tarvin at (303) 341-2478, FAX (303) 341-7167. Wings Over The Rockies Air and Space Museum 7750 E. Irvington Pl Denver, CO 80220 From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bds4798@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com (R. Brian dosSantos) Subject: Re: Help: 737-300 Max Air Speed ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:43 jkd214@aol.com (JKD214) writes: >I an currently working on a product for a Boeing 737-700 aircraft. My >design requirements seem a bit excessive and are driving my cost through >the roof. I am questing the max air speed of this aircraft. I would like >to know the max air speed of this aircraft if any one knows. If any Boeing >engineers are reading this please disreguard (Al, Cathy, Tom). jkd214, Your subject asks for 737-300 Max Air Speed, yet your request is for 737-700 Max air speed. Which is it? Either way if you are designing something for group A based on group B's parameters you are likely going to produce something that won't suit anybody. R. Brian dos Santos --- BCAG, 737X Flight Controls | "If you pick up a starving dog and ring:206.237.6952 | make him prosperous, he will not bite zing:bds4798@mesx01.ca.boeing.com| you. This is the principal difference 102064.776@compuserve.com | between a dog and a man."--Mark Twain From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Joseph D. Farrell" Subject: Re: Help: 737-300 Max Air Speed ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Benefits Litigation Concepts Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:43 Mach .82, cruise will be mach .74 or .76, the Flying Pig it remains From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Help: 737-300 Max Air Speed ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:44 > a design engineer. Why are you asking people not involved in > the design what the design parameters are? I can speculate on Reading his initial post suggested to me that the design parameters imposed by what seems to be his customer (the big aircraft firm) were a bit overdone and resulted in a large cost increase to him. I have a feeling that the poster wishes to validate such design parameters with folks outside of Boeing to see if the Boeing specs are similar to what is used elsewhere in the industry. From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: High tech jets = High risk jets? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:44 "The European", No. 287, 9-15th November 1995, contained the following:- "IATA denies cover-up over air accident statistics" Business & Economics section, front page. By-line: Ian Verch\`ere Begin quote:- More than half of the 722 deaths in airline crashes last year occurred on aircraft employing advanced automation systems, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). In its latest annual report, the Geneva-based body reveals that "at least eight accidents and incidents were related to design features of highly-automated aircraft". Four of these accidents, it says, resulted in 383 fatalities and accounted for 53 per cent of all lives lost last year. IATA says it is "actively pursuing initiatives" to prevent the recurrence of accidents arising from fly-by-wire and controlled flight into terrain problems. According to spokesman William Gaillard, this includes a yearly seminar on "human factors", which industry experts say accounts for about 60 per cent of all accidents. End quote. The front page report is supplemented by an article on page 25 on "Business Travel", headed "Airlines play down risk to travellers", by the same journalist. To summarise both articles briefly, IATA has published the statistics and expressed its concern, but has been criticised for not naming names. However, although its report identifies neither manufacturers or airlines, this data can be obtained easily from Airclaims (for example) but the articles have not used this source. There is some interesting wriggling by IATA to justify their lack of attribution. "By agreeing not to publish such data," said Gaillard, "we have the opportunity to evaluate accidents and find ways of preventing future ones. Otherwise, the airlines would fail to report and much of this information would stay within their organisations." There is mention of the crash at Nagoya of the China Airlines A300-600 on 26th April (264 dead) due to problems with the mode of the autopilot. 121 bereaved relatives have filed suit for $2M per life. China Airline's offer is $164,000 per life. The plaintiffs also cite Airbus in their writ. Airbus spokeswoman Barbara Kracht declined to comment on the allegations: "defective" aircraft design since the autopilot could not be returned to manual mode under 1,500 feet, co-pilot did not notice that autopilot was in abort-landing mode, high level of alcohol in co-pilot's blood. She added that Airbus was "contributing to the trial in Tokyo by not making any public statements" (for which the plaintiffs are no doubt grateful), and that "We're always looking to improve safety. We learn lessons from any incident or accident and when action is needed we take it." Personal comments:- - This seems to be technically fairly shallow as usual. In particular, the articles fail to distinguish between a flight control system and flight management system. ("Fly-by-wire" is a term normally reserved for aircraft with a computer-based FCS. On this basis the A300 and A310 are *not* fly-by-wire. The autopilot is part of the FMS.) - The point that automation, whether in the form of computerised FCS or computerised FMS, *can* contribute to an accident is worth making. - IATA's coyness is amusing, given that without too much digging one can obtain statistics broken down by airframe type and carrier, and official reports of any accident or serious incident. On a final note (just to amuse the pilots in the audience! :-) Hans Krakauer, senior vice-president of aviation for the International Airline Passengers Association said: "It's not just that these aircraft are technologically highly developed, but many are being flown by pilots who are technologically highly underdeveloped." -- 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 Thu Nov 16 03:48:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bill-os@ix.netcom.com (William Osmun ) Subject: Re: QUESTION: Boeing subcontracting policy? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:44 >The first editorial in the November 6 edition of AW&ST states that >"The Seattle planemaker [ie Boeing] subcontracts about 15% of each >transport by value" (p. 86). The July 24, 1995 issue of the same >journal states that "Boeing plans to reduce the in-house content of >its transports from 52% to 48% over the next three to five years" (p. >33). > >How can these two statements be reconciled? Is there a mistake >somewhere or do the two statements not refer to the same thing? The reason these articles are speaking of Boeing's subcontracting is this happens to be a major issue in the current Machinists Union strike. Mainly the machinists are complaining of foreign subcontracting. Possibly, one magazine article presents foreign subcontracting (15%) and the other speaks of total subcontracting. From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:45 While I've never flown on either a BAE 146 or now the Avro RJ (same same), I have talked with several cabin crew who absolutely hated them. This has been some time ago (Air Cal flight attendants). They stated that compared to Boeing or McDD aircraft, everything was poorly designed, worked backward, and was generally a pain. Perhaps the captain sits on the right? Jennings "If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't going" Heilig From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ole-d@hsr.no (Ole Petter Dahl) Subject: Re: B777 order list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hogskolen i Stavanger Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:45 SAS, Scandinavian Airline Systems, is considering whether to by new B777-XXX's. They are going to replace their B767-300ER's. The 767's are being dry leased till 1997. They are intended for use on their long-haul routes to the Far East, and the States. -- Ole Petter Dahl H.I.S. Business Stavanger, Norway e-mail adr.: ole-d@hsr.no www: http://www.hsr.no/~ole-d From kls Thu Nov 16 03:48:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing and McDonnell Douglas merger?! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:45 Thursday's Wall St. Journal has a lengthy article beginning on page A3 (in the Western Edition) detailing merger discussions between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. Apparently Boeing first instigated the talks about a year ago, motivated mostly by a desire to improve its fairly modest military operations. MD's 80% gain in stock market value over the past year, due to some major successes such as ValuJet's recent MD-95 launch order and the military's order for 80 additional C-17s, hasn't killed off Boeing's interest yet. More directly relevant to this newsgroup, the move would effectively eliminate Boeing's only domestic competitor in the commercial airliner market. The WSJ claims they are not overly concerned about the anti- trust implications, since MD has dwindled to such a small player with Airbus representing the major competition. Selling off Douglas if a merger were completed isn't in the plans, though it's difficult to imagine a Boeing-Mac selling both the 737 and MD-80/90/95 and almost as difficult to see them cancelling the MD programs outright. -- 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 Fri Nov 10 19:10:06 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@sphinx.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: 777 folding wing (was: Delta dumps the L1011) Date: 10 Nov 1995 13:49:43 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <480hdn$j7c@sphinx.Stanford.EDU> References: <47lve2$etj@kragar.kei.com> <4809l2$3db@kragar.kei.com> In article <4809l2$3db@kragar.kei.com>, Richard A. Muirden wrote: >I think very little has been said about the 777 folding wing option. Is >it perhaps because of the weight cost that makes it not such a nice >option? Does anyone know if Boeing is even offering the option with the -300 >or -100 ? I'm sure if it worked wonderfully it would sure save a lot of >gate reconfiguration at airports. Perhaps such a fleet could be used on >more domestic routes, or say to Hawaii where the weight issue shouldn't >totally affect range. I'm sure any Japanese variant would look good to >crowded gates at NRT, etc. > >Did Boeing's WA001 have the option installed? I don't think so, but it >would have been nice to see it in production use. None of them have had the option so far. The folding wing design has another implication for range. Because of the option, there is no provision for fuel in the last 20 feet of wing. This means that the ranges of future versions of the 777 could be even longer than they already are, especially since Boeing could also put fuel in the horizontal stabilizer. Of course everything has to be consistent with gross-weight limits and so forth. Imagine a 9000 mile B777. Eat your heart out Airbus. RNA -- ********************************************************************* Great moments in Newspeak: "I do not like this word 'bomb'. It is not a bomb. It is a device which is exploding." ---Jacques Le Blanc, French Ambassador to New Zealand, on the tests of nuclear "exploding devices" in French Polynesia. From news Fri Nov 10 19:19:56 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@sphinx.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: New A330/340 models Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Nov 1995 14:10:44 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <480il4$j9t@sphinx.Stanford.EDU> Followups to sci.aeronautics.airliners Yesterday's (Nov 9) Financial Times mentioned Airbus was trying to go ahead with two new versions of the A330/A340. One would be a shrink of the A330, something called the A330M10, designed to fly 6000 miles (presumably 10 stands for 10,000km?). The other would be a stretch of the A340 to carry 370 passengers in typical configuration (sounds like a competitor for the 777-200/300). The A330M10 may be the long mooted A300 replacement, depending on how short the shrink is. Anyone know anymore? RNA -- ********************************************************************* Great moments in Newspeak: "I do not like this word 'bomb'. It is not a bomb. It is a device which is exploding." ---Jacques Le Blanc, French Ambassador to New Zealand, on the tests of nuclear "exploding devices" in French Polynesia. From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jens <100604.3210@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: New A330/340 models References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: sent via CompuServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:22 M10 stands for 10 frames less (i.e. 5 forward and 5 aft of the wing). Other alternatives looked at were M14 and M17. Jens -- From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Airam J Preto Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:22 gaia1@aol.com (Gaia 1) wrote: >When is the aviation industry going to be serious about the looming >shortage of fossil fuels and their disastrous effects on the atmosphere-- >CO2 contributes over 59% of the greenhouse gases to global warming? How many Kg of fossil fuel are needed to produce 1 Kg of LH2 and LOX today? What about the economics of dealing with these products safely in public transport facilities? From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bush@lf.hp.com (Joe Bush) Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Little Falls Site Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:22 I believe that engines running on hydrogen would still produce large amounts of NOx if air were used to burn the hydrogen! Joe From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:23 In article gaia1@aol.com (Gaia 1) writes: When is the aviation industry going to be serious about the looming shortage of fossil fuels and their disastrous effects on the atmosphere-- CO2 contributes over 59% of the greenhouse gases to global warming? When is the new airplane going to be reinvented? So much is happening with the reinvention of the automobile. How long have particulalry those communities that suffer most from large airports with their concomitant noise, land, water and airpollution wait for a fuel cell powered airplane???? ---- Despite the bias (which I will not address one way or another) that appears in this article, there are several technical problems to be overcome regarding aviation use of H2 which need to be addressed: 1) storage capacity: Gaseous H2 would take up too much volume to be useful given existing aircraft. Totally new aircraft would need to be designed, which would be quite large. Liquid H2 would require cryogenic storage capabilities, which again would require entirely new aircraft designs to be efficient. (Note - the X30 (National Aerospace Plane) concept had a proposal to use Liquid H2 for several reasons - not only would it produce more thrust, but it could also be used as a heat sink to keep the skin temperature down.) 2) safe storage: Unlike jet fuel, which has a very narrow fuel-air ratio in which it will burn, H2 is quite flammable over a wide range of fuel-air ratios. 3) NOx emissions: While CO2 emissions would be reduced by H2 as fuel, nitrous oxide emissions would still be a concern. These are the technical issues w.r.t. a H2 BURNING aircraft. The original poster spoke of "fuel cell powered airplanes", which of course is another can of worms: a fuel cell by definition produces ELECTRICITY (and water). Looking at a fully loaded B747 (3.9e+5 kg), estimate 160,000 lbs (7.12e+5 N) of thrust (40,000 lbs per engine), on a back-of-the- envelope takeoff roll of 6000ft (1830m), you get a total energy requirement of 1,300,000,000 Joules, or an average power output of 30 Megawatts over the 45 second takeoff roll. (Yes, that number is order-of-magnitude comparable to a fully operating nuclear power plant.) Even if you ignore the fuel cell weight that would be required to generate this massive amount of electrical energy for an aircraft to take off, and ignore the efficiency factors, the electric motors required to turn propellors would be necessarily huge and heavy. Furthermore, any large propellor powered aircraft wouldn't decrease the noise pollution mentioned in the article. Bottom line: electrically powered aircraft have many more problems than H2 burning aircraft, which in turn have several problems. "You canna change the laws of physics." ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:23 gaia1@aol.com (Gaia 1) wrote: >When is the aviation industry going to be serious about the looming >shortage of fossil fuels and their disastrous effects on the atmosphere-- >CO2 contributes over 59% of the greenhouse gases to global warming? > >When is the new airplane going to be reinvented? So much is happening with >the reinvention of the automobile. > >In 1957 NASA already tested a hydrogen powered engine in order to find a >new powerplant for a super spyplane that would escape detection. >Astronauts take hydrogen and oxygen into space for their electricity needs >and their H2O. It seems that Germany and Japan are ahead of the US in >respect to research in the use of hydrogen, not only as an industrial >product but also as a transportation fuel. > >How long have particulalry those communities that suffer most from large >airports with their concomitant noise, land, water and airpollution wait >for a fuel cell powered airplane???? Just recently, a fuel-cell (hydrogen) powered bus came through my city on a "tour" of the US to demonstrate this "zero emissions" technology (stick with me, this applies to aircraft as well!). The news stations all showed footage of our state Land Commissioner drinking water produced by the fuel cell, and talking to school children about "zero emissions" vehicles. The kids asked questions, and he answered. He held up a jug of carbon black, and proclaimed "this is the amount of diesel soot (substitute 'jet soot' for the sake of this newsgroup) produced by one conventional bus in a day". I eagerly awaited just *one* bright schoolkid to say "But sir, where does the hydrogen come from? How many *hundreds* of pounds of coal does a powerplant have to burn to split enough water for H2 for this bus to operate for one day? How inefficient is it for us to burn coal to boil water to spin a turbine to turn a generator to send electricity through several transformers to split water (losing energy as waste heat along the whole chain)to make H2 and O2 which then get consumed in a less-than-100% efficient fuel cell to make electricity to turn a motor, rather than just work a little more on the diesel or jet engine? Or I guess we could just use nuclear energy to generate the electricity... (but what a stir THAT comment might cause!)" But of course, no schoolkid said all that, and if one did the news crews wouldn't air it anyway. Reason does not prevail on the "environmental" bandwagon lately. Anyone who calls attention to any fallacies in current "green" policies, will be summarily silenced. Don't get me wrong, the environment needs our concern. But, there are no "zero emission" vehicles. Planes, cars, buses, whatever- they just don't exist. c Before you start pushing fuel cells, or batteries (I could talk about the tons of hazardous waste from battery manufacture/disposal..) just stop and THINK for a minute about the real implications, rather than the pipe dreams. Before you start shouting to get all the old cars and planes off the roads and out of the skies, think about how many TONS of waste are produced just preparing the raw materials for building new cars and planes. Think about how many more years the old equipment could be used (presuming it is well maintained) before it produced enough more pollution than new equipment does to compensate for the pollution caused by building new equipment in the first place! Plus- can you imagine the safety issues of carrying enough H2 and O2 to power a reasonable sized airplane with today's technology?!? Please, lets be rational- maintain, preserve, and use what we have, while new technology continues to develop. -- 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 Nov 21 01:19:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: c-goetze@u-aizu.ac.jp (Christian F. Goetze) Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: University of Aizu, Fukushima, Japan Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:24 In article shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) writes: > Hydrogen is a non-starter for aircraft. > It takes more fossil energy to produce the liquid hydrogen required for > aircraft than it does to just burn the fossil fuel in the aircraft > turbines. So it does not save fossil fuel. Who was talking about using fossil fuel to generate hydrogen? How about solar energy? > [argument relying on the use of fossil fuel and nuclear energy deleted] > If you want to use the hydrogen floating in the oceans, one can grasp the > difficulty of extracting it by thinking of water as rusted hydrogen. ( a > thought I learned from an unknown Princeton physics professor about 20 > years ago) Nice analogy, but irrelevant. The point is that you produce the hydrogen where solar energy is abundant (e.g. north africa) and then transport it to wherever you need it - just the same way as oil is being shipped around the world. I don't deny that there are technical difficulties involved, but simply dismissing hydrogen in a knee-jerk response is definitly not going to solve the very real problem of global warming and fossil fuel depletion. I maintain that the reasons why this isn't happening yet are mostly political. -- cg ftp archive From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: solomon@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (William Joseph Solomon) Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:24 gaia1@aol.com (Gaia 1) writes: >When is the aviation industry going to be serious about the looming >shortage of fossil fuels and their disastrous effects on the atmosphere-- >CO2 contributes over 59% of the greenhouse gases to global warming? What information about the 'looming shortage' do you have? If you include gas and coal then fossil fuel reseres of many hundereds of years exist. Any possible shortage is one of the least important reasons for environmentalists to be worried about reliance on fossil fuels. It's one thing to propose an alternative power plant for aeroplanes but quite another to come up with something that is competative with the current gas turbines. >In 1957 NASA already tested a hydrogen powered engine in order to find a >new powerplant for a super spyplane that would escape detection. >Astronauts take hydrogen and oxygen into space for their electricity needs >and their H2O. It seems that Germany and Japan are ahead of the US in >respect to research in the use of hydrogen, not only as an industrial >product but also as a transportation fuel. I'm not American but I think you would be much mistaken in believing that your researchers are any less competent than the Japanese or Germans. Research is a world-wide activity and there is much exchange of information. Swapping to hydrogen dosen't necessarily solve all the problems - you still have to make the hydrogen. OK if you're willing to do that by nuclear or hydroelectric means (solar, wind are still not economically viable) but not many environmentalists consider these acceptable alternatives. Burnt inefficiently in air hydrogen will still produce NOx. >How long have particulalry those communities that suffer most from large >airports with their concomitant noise, land, water and airpollution wait >for a fuel cell powered airplane???? >Dr. Frans C. Verhagen, energy sociologist, New York City. >Frans C. Verhagen, Ph.D. >===We are made wise not by recollections of the past, but our >responsibility to the future"==(George Bernard Shaw) These communities benefit from the cheap and reliable means of transport modern aircraft provide. If community feelings are that strongly against use of fossil fuels in aricraft then they must be willing to either abandon aircraft altogether of pay for research and development into alternatives. I don't think it is fair to assume that the avaition industry is being backward in responding to environmental concern. Since 1975 the fuel consumption of the B747 has improved by more than 24 percent. 3 percent of this improvement is due to reduced drag and the rest comes from engine improvement. (ref - N. A. Cumpsty "Current Aerodynamic Issues for Aircraft Engines", in 11 Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference" 1992.) This improvement has been driven by commercial factors but has had a significant impact on the emmissions also. Similar advancements have been made in the noise area, due to regulatory pressure and higher bypass ratios. If the general community (and the media) has such strong concerns about engineering issues then why don't more people take the time to understand the technological aspects which play a major role in driving them. I think in the Australian media although 85 percent of science correspondents have university degrees only 15 percent of those are in science and very few in engineering. -- Bill Solomon, Civil&Mechanical Engineering Dept. University of Tasmania, Australia From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Michaels Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:24 I seem to recall reading about 1980's Soviet research into this subject, perhaps involving a Tu 154? (Very misty memory syndrome) Does anybody know more, especially, what came of it? Paul -- Paul Michaels Milford Haven, Wales paul@mides.celtic.co.uk From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Joseph D. Farrell" Subject: AA BDL MD-80 Incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Benefits Litigation Concepts Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:24 For those of you who may have heard of this, on 12 Nov @ 01.45 local an AA MD80, operating as AA1572 ORD-BDL clipped the top of a ridge, shearing off 13 feet of tree-tops making an approach to RWY 15 @ BDL. There is NO published instrument approach to this Runway. Their is a VOR/TACAN approach to R15 which requires a minimum altitude of 2000 feet at 10 miles decreasing to 1080 feet at the point at which the impact with ground 720 AGL/780 feet above tree-tops. My problem with this is that at that time winds were 120-160, 25kts gusting to 44 kts, and the ceiling was 740 feet. What oin gods green earth were the pilots doing accepting a nonI-LS approach into these conditions with the obstacle less than 4 miles from their touchdown with only a working localizer. I'm sorry, but this was not a safe approach into these conditions, it may be legal since the controllers cleared the a/c, but was it safe is another issue. Check the BDL R15 VOR/TACAN approach in the Terminal Procedures pubs, for this a/c legal minimums were NOT available at the time of the final approach. From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Help: 737-300 Max Air Speed ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:25 In article , Joseph D. Farrell wrote: >Mach .82, cruise will be mach .74 or .76, the Flying Pig it remains > Mmo is .82. The Long Range Cruise Mach for the -300 is about 0.745, depending on a number of factors. For the -700, it will be around .785. That doesn't make the -300 a flying pig by any means. You should check out the Fokkers (around .71) or that BAe 146 (about .67!). Talk about your speed bumps. :) Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: J.E.Bos@nl.cis.philips.com (J.E. Bos) Subject: Re: A310, low visibility landing in Zurich, Switzerland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Philips Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:25 >>This is the first time I've heard of an "auto-taxi" capability. > It is the first I have heard also. CAT III has a subdivision in three operational categories: - CAT IIIA, which requires zero vertical visibility, and an RVR in the last phase of the landing of 200 m.; - CAT IIIB, which requires 50m. of RVR, *and* roll out guidance to get the plane off the runway; - CAT IIIC, which does not require more than 0 m. RVR, roll out guidance *and* taxi guidance To put it mildly, CAT IIIC is not around yet very much... regards, - Jan Bos From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:25 DAC uses the year of launch (or projected launch) as their model numbers for the twin-jet series. Brian From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: spagiola Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:26 Don Stokes wrote: >jheilig@gate.net writes: >>According to my source at McDonnell Douglas in Long Beach, the MD-95 is: >> - A DC-9-34 fuselage and wing >> - 38" plug (2 frames) added forward of wing >> - BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 engines >> - MD-87 vertical stabilizer >> - MD-90 tail cone (screwdriver tail) >> - New fuselage/wing fairing >> - Deleted ventral airstair >> - MD-90 avionics (modified) > >OK, so where's the new model? Airbus & Boeing would consider this kind of >change at best a new series number. For these manufacturers a change in >model number indicates pretty major differences in configuration, >particularly Boeing where there isn't any comonality in engine configuration >between models. At Airbus, this kind of change means you change the "A320" label to "A319", each of which have their own distinct series numberings. So the MD-95 designation is not in any way strange. Its all a marketing game, anyway. If the 737 hadn't already been the successful jet airliner around, I bet Boeing would be calling the 737-600/700/800 the 787-100/200/300. > Is there any >particular reason why MDD didn't take the DC-9-30 series or one of the MD-80s >and re-engine it? The MD-80/90 are larger. Proposals to re-engine DC-9s periodically surface. Air Canada, Northwest, and Finnair all seriously considered such schemes in recent years. On these older airframes, though, it turns out hush-kitting was the better deal, economically. We may yet see DC-9s being re-engined. But if you're going to remain an aircraft manufacturer, you have to do just that: build airplanes. So you take proven models and update them with new engines and avionics. Its cheap and low-risk. All those people running around trying to arrange for new 100-seat designs to be built in Asia are going to find it very difficult to compete with the MD-95 and the 737-600: they may not be as fancy as current state-of-the-art allows, but development costs are low and the new engines and avionics offer most of the operating economies that new models would offer. -- Stefano Pagiola spagiola@worldbank.org Tel. 202-458-2997 Fax 202-477-0565 World Bank Environment Dept, 1818 H Str NW, Washington DC 20433 All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect World Bank Group opinions. From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:26 In article you write: > I guess McDonnell Douglas didn't follow Boeing's definition. The MD-80 > didn't have a different engine configuration from the DC-9 either. Thinking about MDD's rather limited product range, vs Boeing's pretty much complete range of >100pax aircraft (and Airbus's not-quite-as-complete but still better than MDD's)... How much commonality is there between Boeing models that wouldn't be there if you ran a mixed fleet -- eg is there a significant advantage to flying an all-Boeing fleet, say 737s & 757s vs flying a mixed fleet (eg A319s instead of 737s)? Boeing makes quite a song & dance about being the only manufacturer to offer the "complete" range (although that really does rely on the 737-800 filling the A320's slot, which isn't in service yet). But there's no engine commonality (except between the 767 & 747), and the airframes are quite different. Is there enough in common (avionics etc) to swing a decision from running a mixed fleet? -- 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 Tue Nov 21 01:19:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:26 Felix R. Villatuya wrote: > I guess McDonnell Douglas didn't follow Boeing's definition. The MD-80 > didn't have a different engine configuration from the DC-9 either. > I believe the MD-80 was in fact a DC-9-80 (or Super 80). Technically > speaking, the MD-95 could be called the DC-9-95. That is probably what will be written on the Type Certificate. The MD-80 is typed as a DC-9-80. The MD-11 is, if memory serves, also typed as a DC-10. Douglas saves big bucks on using the derivative certification process, just as Boeing does, and as Airbus wishes we all couldn't. Until they do *their* stretches, that is. :-) Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:26 In article , > Despite different designations, a 757-222 and 757-232 are quite > similar, just built for different airlines (United and Delta, > respectively). Same general config, same PW2037 engines, etc. > > The more similarly numbered 757-222 and 757-223 are considerably > more divergent, since the latter (built for American) has Rolls- > Royce RB.211-535 engines. > > You can't tell which engine a 757-24A(PF) has, since UPS switched > from the PW2040 on the earlier ones to the RB.211-535 on the later > ones, but they're all the same model. > >I don't really mean to pick on the 757 here -- there are lots of >examples of Boeing designations that don't uniquely identify the >engine (a 747-238B could be either JT9D or RB.211, a 767-332 could >be either CF6-80A2 or PW4060, ad nauseum). These MODEL numbers you are quoting are in fact airline designators. Boeing designates the 2 digit number following the model to individual airlines. example: 767-233 would belong to Air CAnada and a 767-209 would belong to Canadian Airlines. The differences are not only in the engines (which are the same in the above examples) but in the general options selected and layouts in the aircraft. No two airlines select exactly the same equipment and cabin layouts for their aircraft so the differences are noted in the "customer" number 767-type 2-series ??-customer hope that straightenes that out -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org WWW: http://www.io.org/~bradg/ A&P, AME (Canada), PPASEL (Canada) Leading Edge Aviation Services From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:27 > These MODEL numbers you are quoting are in fact airline designators. They're still part of the official model designation of the aircraft as listed on the aircraft's FAA certificate. > Boeing designates the 2 digit number following the model to > individual airlines. Yup. A reasonably full list (~250 of them) is available from the group's archives (http://www.chicago.com/airliners/). > The differences are not only in the engines (which are the same in the above > examples) but in the general options selected and layouts in the aircraft. > No two airlines select exactly the same equipment and cabin layouts for their > aircraft so the differences are noted in the "customer" number Airlines can and do pool orders together, with common specs, to save money or get quicker delivery. For example, Delta's five DC-10s were built to United specs. (I can't think of any good Boeing examples offhand, though they no doubt exist.) At the other end of the spectrum, United has a pair of 747-451s. They are identical to a 747-422 save designation, and rather different from all the 747-451s owned by Northwest. Why aren't they -422s? (They were built for Northwest but cancelled before delivery and retrofitted to UA specs. Though rare, there are similar examples in which Boeing *did* change the designation prior to delivery.) Consider, too, the 707-138. Not only does it have different engines than other (or at least earlier) 707-100s, it's about ten feet shorter! That's a pretty major customer option! -- 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 Nov 21 01:19:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:27 kls@ohare.chicago.com writes: >I'm not sure I'd use Boeing as a paragon of logic in model numbers, at >least not at too fine a level, and considering engines in particular >can get to be a bit silly. Consider the following: I don't have much of a problem with the Boeing numbering. As I understand it, a 757-222 is: Model: 757 Specifies engine size, number of engines, gross airframe configuration Series: 200 Specifies major variations from basic model in range, length, finer airframe configuration 22 Specifies airline-specific configuration, engines (type within range specified for model/series) cabin configuration etc (is there a name for this part of the number?). The model & series numbers are defined by the manufacturer, the rest is between the airlines & Boeing -- Boeing wouldn't sell a 757-222 to Delta; maybe the -232 is very similar, but there are differences to suit Delta's operation over United's. I haven't followed Airbus as closely, but it seems to me that an Airbus model number (eg A320) pretty much follows the same function as the Boeing model. What happens below that I'm not really sure. On the other hand, MDD doesn't seem to have released a new "model" since the DC-10 -- the MD-11 is the same general configuration as the -10; compare the 747-300 with the 747-400. The MD-80, -90 & -95 are all variations of the DC-9 in the same way as a 737-700 is a variation of the -200. >I don't quite understand your comment "there isn't any comonality in >engine configuration between models" with regard to Boeing. If you >mean different series within a type, the 737-300, -400, and -500, all >of which can use the same CFM56-3C1 engine (amongst other variants) I get the term "model" from Boeing's own literature -- the 737-300 and 737-400 are different series within the same model. -- 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 Tue Nov 21 01:19:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Watson Subject: Design continuity in sucessive generations large jets? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Bristol, UK Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:27 I'm working on an economics project to asess the degree of design continuity in sucessive generations of large commercial jet aircraft looking specifically at wing design. I need to find out the relative difference in cost of say manufacturing a 747 wing, without using any of the previous design and test data available from the earler generations of Boeing aircraft. Also I need to find areas of design continuity, areas of partial redesign and areas of full redesign. This is a purely academic project contributing to four years of research into the economics of large manufacturing industries. I would be grateful for any help you can provide about this topic, Thanks, Jim. From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: us012264@interramp.com (John Echeverry) Subject: Re: Singapore ordered 34+43 B777s with Trent engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Air Finance Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:27 In article , Mr Lih-Yenn Ong wrote: > In a separate statement issued in the S'pore Business Times, the reason given > for selecting B777 is its capacity to fly non-stop from S'pore to L.A./S.F. I > am just wondering what the FAA rulings with regards to the use of twin engines > to cover such a long route over the water are. What are the contigency plans > (made by the designer) if one of the engines failed in the midst of the flight > across the Pacific? Most flights across the Pacific utilise "Great Circle" routings which are much closer to land than people think. A nonstop Singapore-L.A. flight would probably fly near Japan, northeast Russia, Alaska, Northwestern Canada, and down the U.S. west coast, never being TOO far away from alternate landing sites, either military or commercial. J.E. -- JOHN ECHEVERRY us012264@interramp.com New York, NY Long Live the BMT! Long Live the Boeing 707! From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: (new and improved) B777 order list Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:28 I would love to make a list for the A330/A340. However, I did not follow the order activity in the early 90s, so I missed many of the orders made by leasing companies. Hope some of you find it interesting. H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@iia2.org) =========================================================================== A330/A340 vs. B777 Competition Watch: Models available/launched (with approximate range and three-class seating): <> A330-300 (4000nm/280) <> A340-200 (7200nm/250) <> A340-300 (6500nm/280) <> A340-300E(7200nm/280) <> >< B777-200 (4000nm/300) >< B777-200IGW(6000nm/300) >< B777-300 (4000nm/375) Near-term proposed models: <> A340-8000(8000nm/250) <> A330M10 (6000nm/250) <> A340-4000(7000nm/375) >< B777-100X(8000nm/250) As of Nov 17,1995: 1995 order: 13 vs. 92 [excluding CX's 7 and KE's 4 777-300 conversions] Total order: 266 vs. 230 Potential new customers (in alphabetical order; by no means is it complete): Air-India, American, Delta, KLM, LOT, Malaysia, Qantas, SAS, Virgin Atlantic =========================================================================== B777 order book --------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------- Engine | GE | P&W | R-R \ Model |100 200 300 Opt|100 200 300 Opt|100 200 300 Opt Airline\ | A IGW | A IGW | A IGW --------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------- United | | 28 6 34| British | 5 10 15| | Thai Int'l | | | 8 0 6 2 All Nippon | | 18 0 10 7| Emirates | | | 0 7 7 Japan | | 10 0 5 10| Lauda | 0 4 0| | EuralAir | 0 2 0| | Cathay Pacific| | | 4 0 7 11 ILFC | 0 6 2| | China Southern| 4 2 0| | Japan Air Sys | | 7 0 0| Continental | 0 5 5| | Korean Air | | 0 4 8 4| Saudia | 0 23 0| | Singapore | | | 0 28 33 --------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------- Total | 0 9 52 0 22| 0 63 10 23 55| 0 12 35 13 53 --------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------- Orders w/ undecided powerplant \ Model |100 200 300 Opt Airline\ | A IGW --------------+------------------- EgyptAir | 0 3 0 South Africa | 0 4 3 S'pore Aircraft Leasing | 0 6 10 --------------+------------------- Total | 0 0 13 0 13 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Letters of Intent (LoI) Airline 100 200 300 Opt China Airlines 4 EVA Airways 4 4 (possible launch of B777 Combi?) Air China 10 Total 18 4 =========================================================================== == Total by region: Grand total == North America: 39 100 200 IGW 300 | Total Option == Europe: 21 Total 84 110 36 | 230 143 == Pacific Rim: 121 LoI 18 | 18 4 == Middle East / Africa: 37 Grand total 0 102 110 36 | 248 147 == South America: 0 == Unknown(leasing): 12 =========================================================================== From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Aircraft Order Update (Nov 17, 95) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:30 Airbus has not publicly announced many orders since July. My list is about 10 short for Airbus and 5 short for Boeing. I'll be out in December. I may or may not have another update before I leave. In January, I will post a complete list for 1995. Just in case if someone is interested, I have a nice PostScript file of the list generated with LaTeX. I can mail you the PostScript or LaTeX file if you send me a request. Eventually I may convert the LaTeX file to HTML file and put it on the WWW. *** 1995 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Nov 17, 95) *** 1st Half Total Sorted by Engine Selections | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| |BMW/RR | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |CFMI | 0 30 0 0 0 4| 22 35 14 4 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |GEAE | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 9 0 12 23 0| 0 6| |IAE | 0 0 8 6 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 29 0| |P&W | 2 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 4| 7 0| |R-R | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 6| 0 0| |Unknown| 2 0 0 10 0 0| 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0| 0 0| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 0 4| 22 35 14 4 14 10 19 29 10| 36 6| | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 62 ) | B O E I N G ( 157 ) |MD( 42)| 2nd Half Orders |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N|CX | 2R | | | N|SQ | | 34R | | N|Onur Air | | 5P | N|GF | 6R | | | |HV | | 8 | | |SA | | 2U 4U | | |JL | | 5P| | |SK | | 6 | | |Turkmenistan | 2R | | |5J | | | 50B | |HY | | 1U 2U | | |SQ | | 1P | | |Unknown(KA?) 1U | | | |LH | 1| 4G | | |NH | | 10P| | |BR | | | 6I | |Itochu(for LG) | 2 | | |SK | | | 2I | |S'pore Aircraft (for AZ) | 3G | | |ILFC | | 40 11 3 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 9 5| 24 81 25 15 21 13 24 67 25| 99 6| | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 72 ) | B O E I N G ( 295 ) |MD(105)| Announced Letters of Intent |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| |CA | | 5U 10U | | |BR | | 4U | | |CI | | 4U | | |UX | | 8 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 9 5| 24 81 25 23 26 13 24 85 25| 99 6| | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 72 ) | B O E I N G ( 326 ) |MD(105)| 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/R-R, 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). 4 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. 5 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 CX - Cathay DM - Maersk GA - Garuda GE - Trans Asia GF - Gulf Air GMI- Germania HV - Transavia HY - Uzbekistan IW - AOM French IY - Yemenia JL - Japan AL KA - DragonAir 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 SA - South African SK - SAS SQ - Singapore SV - Saudia TG - Thai Int'l TR - Transbrasil UA - United UX - Air Europa VP - VASP YP - Aero Llyod 3Q - Yunnan(China) 5J - ValuJet 5X - UPS From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: richard@rmit.edu.au (Richard A. Muirden) Subject: Info on Boeing's Airliner magazine Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:30 A few weeks back someone was after information on subscribing to Boeing's Airliner magazine. Well, I finally found my copy (Feb-Mar 1995) and here's the info: "The Boeing AIRLINER magazine is, and will contiunue to be distributed at no cost to Boeing jetliner operators as well as to assosciate and subcontractors. "The same applies to aviation regulatory agencies, affected DOD commands, and certain educational institutions. The magazines are bulk-shipped to a specific office within each organization for internal distribution. "The AIRLINER magazine is available for personal subscritpions at the rate of $35.00 U.S. per year. (Applicable state and local taxes will be added.) "Those wishing to subscribe for personal copies should send their checks, payable to BOEING AIRLINER MAGAZINE, to the address shown below: Airliner Magazine Office M/S 2L-30 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group PO Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 (USA) -richard -- Richard A. Muirden, Sys. Admin |Fan of Shostakovich, "Star Trek" and Aircraft! Mailto: richard@rmit.EDU.AU |Fly the Friendly Skies of United Airlines ! Phone: (+61 3) 9660 3814 |I created alt.fan.shostakovich! (no boast!) http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard |Can *YOU* beat my 120 Shost CD's? :-) * 1995: Remembering 20 years since the death of Shostakovich (1906-75) * From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Kevin Brennan Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas Web site (InfoWorld article URL) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell, Air Transport Systems Division; Phoenix, AZ Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:30 bruce.e.oneel.1@gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce O'Neel) wrote: >In InfoWorld, Nov 13 1995, there is a case study on page 67 which talks >about Douglas Aircraft Corp's web site (http://www.dac.mdc.com). If you . . . The InfoWorld article may be read by accessing: http://www0.internet.net/cgi-bin/info3?/1746/I02-46.67 Note that other OEMs and equipment manufacturers are also exploring this technology. Watch places like ATA ( http://air-transport.org ) and OEMs such as Boeing ( http://www.boeing.com ) sites for press releases. Kevin __ Opnions expressed are mine and not necessarily those of my employer. From kls Tue Nov 21 01:19:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330 crash (was: B777 order list) References: <47dmkf$31j@kragar.kei.com> <47lvmk$etj@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:31 >> previous remarks because I thought it was really impressive that Boeing >> was able to certify a brand new aircraft (B777) right on time. Most of >> all, Boeing did it without losing a test aircraft! ;-) (Sorry, I cant' >> resist.) >I'd like to mention that the reason why Airbus lost the A330 in 1994 was >because of the dedication of the test crew to gather the best data. Wrong, though that was a very early explanation, when only the barest preliminary facts were known. >I don't want to rehash details.... Evidently because you don't know what they are. >when the (chief) test pilot observed the autopilot problem upon take >off, he chose not to disengage immediately so that they could better >analyze the situation. First, the autopilot problem manifested itself significantly after takeoff. Several attempts to engage the autopilot immediately after takeoff were unsuccessful, for reasons which are unclear to me. At approximately 6 seconds after takeoff (TO +6 sec.), the autopilot was successfully engaged, but did not activate because the First Officer was pushing forward (i.e., commanding a nose-down) on his sidestick. The autopilot activated 2 seconds after engagement, at TO +8 sec., and at about TO +8.4 sec. switched to ALT* (altitude acquisition) mode, which lacked the envelope protection present throughout all of the A330's other flight modes. The Captain was not even aware of what the autopilot was doing as he was occupied throttling back the #1 engine and then cutting off the blue hydraulic system, the latter occurring between TO +10 sec. and TO +12 sec., several seconds after activation of the autopilot. At TO +15 sec., he finally realized something was amiss -- the CVR has him saying "And I ... I don't know what's gone." After several seconds of confusion (trying to figure out how to save the plane, not trying to study the thing), he disconnected the autopilot at TO +19 sec. and begain attempting recovery by pushing his sidestick to full forward and applying full right rudder at TO +20 sec. Alas, his actions came too late and they did not have sufficient altitude in which to manuever. >When he, however, did take controls into manual it was too late and >the tail made contact. What happened next is well known. You almost make it sound like it was a hard tail strike. In fact, the aircraft was banked 18 seg. to the left and 15 deg. nose-down when it crashed (at TO +38 sec.). The left wingtip hit first; the tail was probably the last portion of the aircraft to impact, though just prior to impact the descent rate was roughly 9,000 ft/min. so there was very little time between the two. >Losing the aircraft was nothing. Sure, what's $100+ million when your hand is deeply ensconced in the government's pocket? >Losing seven lives wasn't. Especially when you consider that four of them had no business being aboard what was clearly a test flight. Perhaps if they had bothered to have *two* test pilots flying the plane (the First Officer was an A320 line pilot) they might all have lived. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Nov 21 01:20:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.products Path: bounce-back From: "A. Kevin Rodriguez" Subject: Aircraft Remanufacturing Software Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:20:31 Organization: TASC I'm trying to find information on some software products which are commonly used in the aircraft remanufacturing industry. Remanufacturing generally consists of heavy maintenance on the airframe but can include much more. I've tried to find information on the WWW but to know avail. If anyone out there has information on the following s/w products, can you please E-Mail them directly. The products I'm interested in are (I may not have these correct since they were received from another source who himself was not sure): SEPTRE (this is in fairly common use by some US majors), Rene Perez (Who, What, Where, ...), Ultra/Maxi-Merlin (I'm not sure on the name). Any help would be appreciated. Come to think of it, are these manufacturing products? If not, what are they? __ A. Kevin Rodriguez (AKRodriguez@TASC.com) The Analytic Sciences Corporation (TASC) Reading, Massachusetts From kls Tue Nov 21 01:20:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: spagiola Subject: Re: New A330/340 models References: <480il4$j9t@sphinx.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:20:31 dms1002@hermes.cam.ac.uk (D.M. Shurz) wrote: >>The A330M10 may be the long mooted A300 replacement, depending on how >>short the shrink is. Anyone know anymore? > >As far as I can understand the rationale is that in the short term the >A330M10 is a 767-300ER competitor, as Airbus feel that this is a market >segment they should be in, and the range of the A310-300 cannot compete, but >I would imagine that the next intention would be that the plane could be >further adapted with phaseout of both the A300 and A310. I don't have exact range figures handy, but if the A310-300 can't match the 767-300ER, I'd imagine you could get it to. But the A310 is a smaller aircraft. Just as there have been few sales of the 767-200 (which is a closer match to the A310), there have been few of the 767. The A300-600, on the other hand, is still based on the original A300 wing (the A310 has a different wing), so that design is reaching its limits. So shrinking the A330 makes sense. -- Stefano From kls Tue Nov 21 01:20:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: spagiola Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:20:31 bernies@ice.net.au (Bernie Samms) wrote: >Manuel.DeKlerck@ping.be says... >>>>I was wondering if you know why the Avro RJ rejional jets are >>>>so popular. I like the planes myself, but I thought that the >>>>four engines would dramaticially increase the cost of the planes. > >>>Probably because the four engines make passengers feel more secure. > >>Four (lighter) engines allow a lighter construction of the wings, so >>although the engines may cost more, overall cost is not increased. > >The secret is quiet (cheap?) operation from low power engines. As in many things, the reason the 146 has 4 engines is basically accidental. When it was first designed in the mid-1970s (as the HS.146), there were no two engines that would provide the required performance. So they used 4. Since these engines were in fact exceptionally quiet, they then stressed this marketing point. >Personally, >I hate the things. They are slower (in BAE146 format) in my Aussie travels >and despatch rate with Ansett Australia, as far as my experience goes, is >very poor. I feel more secure in a good old Boeing 737, 727 or even a DC9. >Maybe the newer Avro RJ is improved? The BAe 146 is not a fast airplane, as jets go. It was designed for short-haul routes, where speed is secondary. Ansett is using them on some pretty long segments out there in western Oz. (BTW, the 737 is also pretty slow; one reason United went with the A320). As for despatch reliability, early models did fare poorly (and AN has some pretty early examples). In any case, the Avro RJ is very much improved. Do you think airlines like Lufthansa and Crossair would buy them in large numbers in preference to the Fokker jetline series if they were poor aircraft? Stefano From kls Tue Nov 21 01:20:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: UserID@gwis.com Subject: Re: PW JT-8D Cruise Parameters for MD88 and B-727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gateway to Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:20:32 Hi Shane: The B-727 cruise numbers need some clarification: 1990 = 1.99 EPR, etc. It's been ten years since I've flow the 727, but cruise fuel flows at average gross weights of approx 150,000 lbs, M.82, FL350 are about 3,500#/hr/eng. I've never flown the DC-9/MD-80, but I would guess that the cruise fuel flows are proportionately less due to the incresed efficiency (higher bypass ratios) of the P&W JT-8D-209 engines. EPR is only 1.00 with throttle at idle, on the ground or in flight. Take-off EPR on the JT-8D-15 engine at my airline runs about 2.05 to 2.12 depending upon density altitude, air conditioning pack on/off and engine anti-ice on/off! Also, EPR is a dimensionless number (i.e., no units) that is the ratio of PT7 divided by PT2. PT7 is the total pressure (statis + dynamic) at engine station 7 divided by station 2. This means, in layman's terms, total turbine/exhaust pressure divided by engine inlet/compressor pressure. It's a measure of engine "work" produced, very roughly equivalent to BMEP on a reciprocating engine. (i.e. EPR is measures as, for example, 1.84. That's it. It's not 1.84 yards, or 1.84 degrees, or 1.84 anything. It's 1.84. That's it !!!!!!) Thanks for the opportunity to provide some info. Regards, George From kls Tue Nov 21 01:20:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: PW JT-8D Cruise Parameters for MD88 and B-727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:20:32 In article flynn@pncl.co.uk (chris flynn) writes: >>With the engine shutdown it is. The EPR indicator dial starts at 1.0 and >>goes up to 2.6. Takeoff power is usually around 2.0. > >Does the 727 have a different 8D? >I know the -15 quite well (I'm licensed on it) and epr at max power is >around 1.6. My 727-200 simulator is build around the JT8D-15. Go-around EPR is around 2.02 at 15 degrees at sea level. Idle EPR, on the ground, is 1.01-1.03. -- 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 Nov 21 01:20:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: flynn@pncl.co.uk (chris flynn) Subject: Re: PW JT-8D Cruise Parameters for MD88 and B-727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pinnacle Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Nov 95 01:20:32 flynn@pncl.co.uk (chris flynn) wrote: >tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) wrote: >>>First of all, my question is... what are these numbers?!? ... 1990-2000? >>1990 is 1.990; 2000 is 2.000. >>> E.P.R. is usually around 1.00 or so. >>With the engine shutdown it is. The EPR indicator dial starts at 1.0 and >>goes up to 2.6. Takeoff power is usually around 2.0. >Does the 727 have a different 8D? >I know the -15 quite well (I'm licensed on it) and epr at max power is >around 1.6. Ignore me, brain death in progress. Max EPR RB211-22B = 1.6ish Max EPR JT8D-15 = much bigger number. Duh. Gone. From news Sun Nov 26 06:14:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!ccnet.com!boo!netcom.com!rdd From: gkevork@ix.netcom.com (GARABED K. KEVORKIAN ) Subject: A310 AND L1011 AIRLINE TRAINING Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom13.netcom.com Organization: Netcom Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 17:22:32 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu I am new to this group. I would like to meet some instructors worldwide who have been involved in flight crew and line mechanics training, on L1011 and A310 airplanes. I have been to Toulouse for A310 flight crew instructor training and aircraft systems training. If there are any instructors from Aeroformation/Toulouse,France , I would like to establish base. Hope to hear from some of you. Thanks. Gary/ California From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Jan P. Andrews" Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Public Radio Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:13 (This whole issue is way outside my area of expertise, but I suppose that gives me a certain amount of license to ask dumb questions...) shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) wrote, in part: >It takes more fossil energy to produce the liquid hydrogen required for >aircraft than it does to just burn the fossil fuel in the aircraft >turbines. So it does not save fossil fuel. If the hydrogen fuel were produced during off-peak times when excess electric generating capacity was on-line and unused, couldn't it be argued that the hydrogen fuel was being extracted without using additional fossil or nuclear fuel or hydroelectric energy? (That assumes, of course, that someone would be willing to build a hydrogen fuel plant that would only operate for a few hours per day, the hours being adjusted on a seasonal basis as well.) >The pollution produced producing the liquid hydrogen is probably worse than >that produced by the fossil fuel burning aircraft. If done on an off-peak basis, would significant amounts of additional pollution (above and beyond that produced when the plants are running unloaded) necessarily be generated by the electric power plants? If your arguments are correct, wouldn't they completely discredit any supposed advantages of electric cars, etc., over conventional fossil-fueled versions? Is/was the CA legislation requiring that a percentage of cars be non-fossil- fueled totally specious? Jan P. Andrews Project Engineer Audio Enginering Division National Public Radio Washington DC USA jandrews@npr.org From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rma@winternet.com (Rich Ahrens) Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:14 Steve Lacker (slacker@arlut.utexas.edu) wrote: : I eagerly awaited just *one* bright schoolkid to say "But sir, where does the : hydrogen come from? How many *hundreds* of pounds of coal does a powerplant : have to burn to split enough water for H2 for this bus to operate for one day? : How inefficient is it for us to burn coal to boil water to spin a turbine to : turn a generator to send electricity through several transformers to split : water (losing energy as waste heat along the whole chain)to make H2 and O2 : which then get consumed in a less-than-100% efficient fuel cell to make : electricity to turn a motor, rather than just work a little more on the diesel : or jet engine? Or I guess we could just use nuclear energy to generate the : electricity... (but what a stir THAT comment might cause!)" We're getting awfully far afield here, particularly with the political commentary I didn't quote. But if this anti-green sentiment is going to be allowed here, I think it only fair to point out that there are other means of producing the necessary energy, such as direct solar (not even mentioning photvoltaics here, as the technology may not be efficient enough yet) and geothermal, which produce far less emissions than burning fossil fuels even taking full life cycles into consideration. (None of which should be taken as an endorsement of the original proposal for liquid hydrogen aircraft.) -- Rich Ahrens rma@winternet.com Homepage: http://www.winternet.com/~rma/ "I used to be disgusted...now I try to be amused..." E. Costello From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:14 > Who was talking about using fossil fuel to generate hydrogen? How > about solar energy? > Some countries have poor "natural" electric production capabilities and rely on nuclear or fossil fuel power plants. So, it is normal to expect reactions such as "hydrogen would pollute as much as jet fuel" from citizens of such countries since they grew up thinking that electricity pollutes as much as fossil fuels. However, in regions where hydro electric electricity is abundant, hydrogen becomes a viable source. That fuel-cell bus that was mentioned comes from British Columbia (Canada). As well, Hydro Quebec (Canada) spends larges sums of money to research more efficient methods of producing hydrogen. Electric utilities are equipped to meet peak demand, and are over powered for other times of day/year. Hence, if they could use that excess capacity during times of low demand to produce Hydrogen, their infrastructure would be better used. As well, countries where there is abundant sunlight (Australia, Africa) could become major producers. Hydro Electricity is more questionable because of the environmental changes caused by the flooding of large areas. However, before airplanes are commonly powered by hydrogen, you'll see the consumer cars, trucks and buses and perhaps even trains go hydrogen. From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:15 Paul Michaels (paul@mides.celtic.co.uk) wrote: : I seem to recall reading about 1980's Soviet research into this : subject, perhaps involving a Tu 154? (Very misty memory syndrome) : Does anybody know more, especially, what came of it? : Paul Lockheed proposed an L1011 experimental H2 aircraft. They had three/four sites for it to fly to/from Riyadh was definately one, London may have been another. -- Ian Judge _|_ ian@judgei.demon.co.uk _____(_)_____ ! ! ! From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: e.h.bogart@larc.nasa.gov (Ed Bogart) Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:15 In article , ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) wrote: > Despite the bias (which I will not address one way or another) that > appears in this article, there are several technical problems to be > overcome regarding aviation use of H2 which need to be addressed: > > 1) storage capacity: Gaseous H2 would take up too much volume to be > useful given existing aircraft. Totally new aircraft would need to be > designed, which would be quite large. Liquid H2 would require > cryogenic storage capabilities, which again would require entirely new > aircraft designs to be efficient. > [snip] There is another problem with H2 storage that may be even harder to get around. Most common aircraft matl. is permeable to H2 in gaseous or liquid state. This means that leakage is inevitable and must be dealt with in design (doable) and operation (BIG problem). > > 2) safe storage: Unlike jet fuel, which has a very narrow fuel-air > ratio in which it will burn, H2 is quite flammable over a wide range > of fuel-air ratios. > [snip] Not only is H2/air flammable over a wide range of mixtures, but the energy required to ignite it is orders of maginitude lower than even gasoline/air. When you combine this with the leakage problem, you can begin to see the practical problems of an H2 system. -- From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: hydrogen powered planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:16 In article , Christian F. Goetze wrote: >In article shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) writes: > >> Hydrogen is a non-starter for aircraft. > >> It takes more fossil energy to produce the liquid hydrogen required for >> aircraft than it does to just burn the fossil fuel in the aircraft >> turbines. So it does not save fossil fuel. > >Who was talking about using fossil fuel to generate hydrogen? How >about solar energy? Fossil fuels are used to manufacture solar cells. Last time I checked on that technology, 1988 or so, it still took more fossil fuel energy to manufacture a solar cell, than a solar cell would generate over its expected economic life. I rather hope things have improved some in the last eight years, but I wouldn't bet the mortgage on it. >> [argument relying on the use of fossil fuel and nuclear energy deleted] > >> If you want to use the hydrogen floating in the oceans, one can grasp the >> difficulty of extracting it by thinking of water as rusted hydrogen. ( a >> thought I learned from an unknown Princeton physics professor about 20 >> years ago) > >Nice analogy, but irrelevant. The point is that you produce the >hydrogen where solar energy is abundant (e.g. north africa) and then >transport it to wherever you need it - just the same way as oil is >being shipped around the world. There are major safety concerns with that plan. There is not a single port in the entire world that would let a tanker filled with hydrogen dock anywhere near them. Gasoline tankers give ports the willies, and you are proposing putting a *far* more flammible gas in their facilities. Good luck. >I don't deny that there are technical difficulties involved, but >simply dismissing hydrogen in a knee-jerk response is definitly not >going to solve the very real problem of global warming and fossil fuel >depletion. No one is dismissing hydrogen as a knee-jerk response. There are a lot of very talented, and very well informed engineers who have studied this possibility, and it just doesn't stack up against fossil fuels. So, unless something major changes in the near future, don't expect to see any hydrogen powered aircraft. >I maintain that the reasons why this isn't happening yet are mostly >political. There are two major reasons why nothing major is being done. Economics and airplane performance. If it were merely political, your whining would have some hope of eventually succeeding. As it is, there is no pressing economic argument to change fuels. The cost of developing a totally separate fuel infrastructure, one for hydrogen, is staggering. The cost, quite literally, would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. At that, we'd be getting off cheap just doing the jet transports, which by the way, contribute less than 5% of all your global warming gases, IIRC. The lower energy density of gaseous hydrogen fuel has a severe effect on airplane range. The weight penalty for insulation to handle the liquid hydrogen fuel would have much the same effect. Or did you have in mind something like metallic hydrogen? Not that anyone knows how to store, ship, or handle metallic hydrogen fuel. And we haven't even brought up design standards or the test data to back them up. Jet fuel in the United States runs less than $0.60 per US gallon. What would your hydrogen fuel cost? Who will pay for it? Who will pay for and maintain hydrogen fuel tanks at airports all around the world? What about turboprops? Do they have to use hydrogen fuel, too? In closing, I'd like to say that moving to a hydrogen fuel *someday* sounds like a promising idea. However, the technology is not here yet. Moreover, there needs to be some pressing need to develop the technology, and there isn't one. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rvriet@rwm.nl (Ronald van Riet) Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rvriet@rwm.nl (Ronald van Riet) Organization: NLnet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:17 spagiola wrote: ... >In any case, the Avro RJ is very much improved. Do you think airlines >like Lufthansa and Crossair would buy them in large numbers in preference >to the Fokker jetline series if they were poor aircraft? >Stefano That's one thing I cannot figure out (but being Dutch I may be prejudiced): why buy a four-engined plane which is more expensive to operate instead of a two-engined, just as quiet and (from personal experience) with a much higher passenger comfort. I do mean, of course, the Fokker Jetliner series.... Especially in the case of Crossair: Swissair had the Fokker 100, Crossair (its subsidiary) the 145; now who owns who??? Many happy landings Ronald van Riet From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:17 In article spagiola writes: As in many things, the reason the 146 has 4 engines is basically accidental. When it was first designed in the mid-1970s (as the HS.146), there were no two engines that would provide the required performance. So they used 4. Since these engines were in fact exceptionally quiet, they then stressed this marketing point. ==== One humorous note: At one airline early in the BAe-146 service, the "BAe" in was understood to mean "Bring Another engine", as there were problems bringing the engines into service - the gas generator section was originally designed as an APU... ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stephan@lac.inpe.br (Stephan Stephany) Subject: New EMBRAER Regional Jet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:18 The second protoype of the EMBRAER Regional Jet, the EMB-145, made recently its maiden flight (successfully). Well, maybe everybody knows, but just in case: - it's a low wing, T-shaped tail a/c, with 2 "rear" turbofans; it uses the the fuselage of the EMB-130 Brasilia, but stretched; it looks beautiful; Does anybody have more technical info? Thanks, Stephan Stephany INPE - Brazilian Space Research Institute From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: alfonso@melbpc.org.au (Vince Alfonso) Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:18 Jennings Heilig wrote: >While I've never flown on either a BAE 146 or now the Avro RJ (same >same), I have talked with several cabin crew who absolutely hated them. >This has been some time ago (Air Cal flight attendants). They stated >that compared to Boeing or McDD aircraft, everything was poorly designed, >worked backward, and was generally a pain. Perhaps the captain sits on >the right? The Captain still sits on the left, but all the electrical switches operate in reverse position to Boeing et al. (ie down is off) >Jennings "If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't going" Heilig Wise man. Vince From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael Mills Subject: ground control hand signals? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:18 could someone who is familiar with the hand/light signals of an airport ground controller (on foot, guiding planes into gates and such) give me a few basic patterns (right,left,stop,etc.)? thanks for any/all advice. -- m.d.mills interviewer: what kind of guitars do you play? dept.of.computer.science stevie ray vaughan: they're wood. carnegie.mellon.university pittsburgh.pa.15213 From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: susanle@ix.netcom.com (Susan Leibowitz ) Subject: landing in fog Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:19 I'm curious...a friend of mine was coming into LA on an L-1011.. It was on one of those very foggy days. They tried to land three times and then gave up and landed in Las Vegas. The rumor on the plane was that the pilot wasn't fog certified. Does that make sense? And why wouldn't they've been able to use instruments to land? From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdk@apk.net (John Knopp) Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: APK - Internet Provider for Ohio. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:19 On Nov.21 erisajd@Neca.com (Joseph Farrell) wrote: >My problem with this is that at that time winds were 120-160, 25kts gusting >to 44 kts, and the ceiling was 740 feet. What oin gods green earth were >the pilots doing accepting a nonI-LS approach into these conditions with >the obstacle less than 4 miles from their touchdown with only a working >localizer. Joe, If memory serves, the only ILS that would have even been a *remote* possibility that night was the ILS to 24 at BDL. Now I don't know about you, but I would *much* rather shoot a VOR to a favorable runway (wind) than an ILS with a 60 deg. crosswind gusting to 44 kts. In fact, they may have been illegal to shoot the ILS under those conditions as most airlines are limited to a 25 kt. crosswind component on approach. As to your claim about the WX v. minimums on the VOR approach, I don't have my Jepps handy and I don't know what the actual SA showed at the time of the incident so we'll all have to wait and see. Maybe you and I should forego the "armchair-aviator" judgements until we have more info, eh? -JK -- John Knopp jdk@apk.net DC-9 Cleveland, OH From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ctchknman@aol.com (CTchknman) Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ctchknman@aol.com (CTchknman) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:20 although the conditions may have seemed extreme to you, I can only assume you are not a commercial airline pilot. These conditions, although less than desirable, were well within the day in and day out parameters of the aircraft, pilots, and runway. This is the weather we make our living in. Although the wind was strong, it was relatively down the runway. With a 20- 45 kt headwind componant, the groundspeed was not a factor for a 6900 ft, runway. The crosswind componant was also quite small. The problem seems to be an incorrect altimeter setting/ indication problem as the pilots were 300 ft. lower than they thought. From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eemaan@aimnet.com (Ethan Schell) Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:20 In article , "Joseph D. Farrell" wrote: > For those of you who may have heard of this, on 12 Nov @ 01.45 local an > AA MD80, operating as AA1572 ORD-BDL clipped the top of a ridge, shearing > off 13 feet of tree-tops making an approach to RWY 15 @ BDL. There is NO > published instrument approach to this Runway. Their is a VOR/TACAN > approach to R15... Since there is a VOR Rwy 15 approach, then there is a published approach. > ... which requires a minimum altitude of 2000 feet at 10 miles > decreasing to 1080 feet at the point at which the impact with ground 720 > AGL/780 feet above tree-tops. The minimum descent height (MDH) at that point is 908 feet AGL. > My problem with this is that at that time winds were 120-160, 25kts gusting > to 44 kts, and the ceiling was 740 feet. What was the visibility? That is an important part of the minimums. > What oin gods green earth were > the pilots doing accepting a nonI-LS approach into these conditions with > the obstacle less than 4 miles from their touchdown with only a working > localizer. I'm sorry, but this was not a safe approach into these > conditions, it may be legal since the controllers cleared the a/c, but > was it safe is another issue. Check the BDL R15 VOR/TACAN approach in > the Terminal Procedures pubs, for this a/c legal minimums were NOT > available at the time of the final approach. It is interesting to note there are four ILS, three VOR and one NDB approach into BDL, all of which have circle to land MDAs/MDHs less then that for the VOR Rwy 15 (with the exception of the ILS Rwy 6 CAT II & III). Ethan Schell Your life vest is under your seat. From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: brianmccar@aol.com (BrianMcCar) Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: brianmccar@aol.com (BrianMcCar) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:21 >My problem with this is that at that time winds were 120-160, 25kts >gusting to 44 kts, and the ceiling was 740 feet. I'm surprised to hear only 44kts. It was blowing LIKE HELL at my location about 15 miles south of Bradley. The local press reported something about the controllers working from a room below the control tower, since the wind had damaged the glass. They also say that the altimeter wasn't reset when it should have been, possibly due to the disruption in control tower routine. Since there was one hell of a front passing through, the barometric pressure must have been changing significantly. Whenever there's a snowstorm or whatnot, we always get cheery reports that Bradley has stayed open when everywhere else has shut down. I wonder now if they might be operating a little too close to the edge? The people on that plane were very lucky. They came within 50 feet of flying straight into a vertical trap rock cliff. Brian McCarthy From kls Wed Nov 29 01:36:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: mcelroy@avd00.larc.nasa.gov (Marcus O. McElroy) Subject: Re: (new and improved) B777 order list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 95 01:36:21 Potential new customers (in alphabetical order; by no means is it complete): Air-India, American, Delta, KLM, LOT, Malaysia, Qantas, SAS, Virgin Atlantic Andrew, How did you know that Delta was a potential new customer? I herard some things myself from inside sources. We'll see if you're right soon enough. Ciao, Marcus. -- * Marcus O. McElroy * NASA/Langley Research Center * M.S. 248 * * Hampton, VA 23681-0001 * phone-804.864.5938 * fax-804.864.3553 * From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: 777/Trent Problems Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:49 Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Does anyone know the current status of the Trent certification on the 777-200? I was in Seattle this week and both Cathay Pacific airplanes were parked on the ramp at Boeing Field. With the strike, nothing was happening, but I hadn't heard if they had fixed the problems or not. I suspect not or the airplanes probably wouldn't be in Seattle. No other 777s were on the ramp, but I didn't get up to Everett... Cheers, Jennings From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hyao@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Hans Yao) Subject: 757 Autoland Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:49 Organization: Washington & Lee University I was recently aboard an USAir 757 tht executed an autoland at Charlotte, nice smooth approach and touchdown was smooth, though solid. I queried the flight crew after the flight (just wanted to see the flight deck, didnt know Id stumble onto such an interesting topic.) He said that that landing was a routine test of the system, certified for approaches to 600 feet visibility. Is there anyone out there that would care to post or mail me more information about the various autoland systems, how they work, what the specifications are, if they are legal for zero-zero? I thought it was pretty interesting, the plane being able to do that all on its own. Anyone with any thoughts, remarks, or previously posted information on the topic? Hans From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: brianm4463@aol.com (BrianM4463) Subject: Re: landing in fog References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: brianm4463@aol.com (BrianM4463) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:49 There really isn't such a thing as "fog certification", although there IS something called Category II or Category III certification, both for aircrews and airplanes. The ILS equipment and approach profile also must be certified to the same specification. This certification allows a crew and airplane to fly an instrument approach to lower ceiling and visibility minimums than a normal ILS approach, which is normally 200' ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility. The crew was almost certainly certified in at least Cat II, as was the airplane. Generally, Cat II minimums are 100' ceiling with reduced visibility (called RVR). A crew can fly a Cat II approach down to 100', and if the runway environment is not visible, they must miss the approach and at their option, try again. Cat III can go down to zero-zero, theoretically. My guess is either: a) the weather was below Cat II minimums and there was no Cat III approach available (or the crew wasn't Cat III current) or b) The airplane wasn't current in Cat II or Cat III for some reason (pretty unlikely, given where it was flying) Most likely, the fog was just to doggone thick for a safe landing. Just my 2 cents. From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: landing in fog References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:50 In article , Susan Leibowitz wrote: >I'm curious...a friend of mine was coming into LA on an L-1011.. It was >on one of those very foggy days. They tried to land three times and >then gave up and landed in Las Vegas. > >The rumor on the plane was that the pilot wasn't fog certified. Does >that make sense? > >And why wouldn't they've been able to use instruments to land? I'm not familiar with your exact situation, but there is no such thing as a "fog" certification. What may have happened is that you ran into Category III weather with a Cat III airplane but a captain certified to Cat II standards. Perhaps we can get one of the professional pilots out there to comment. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: swd_epk@afdsb.cca.rockwell.com () Subject: Re: landing in fog References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: swd_epk@afdsb.cca.rockwell.com () Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:50 The L-1011 has an automatic landing system certified to Weather minimum Category IIIB which is 0 ceiling and 300 ft (or perhaps a little more) runway visual range. Category IIIB requires rudder control because the autopilot must fly the airplane for some time while it is on the ground and before it slows sufficiently for pilot control at low RVR. Category IIIA has a 50 ft decision height meaning that the crew must visually see the runway at that point or are required to Go Around by procedure. It also has a longer RVR, perhaps 1400 ft. The Autoland system monitors itself and announces in advance if it has sufficient redundancy to procede into Category IIIA or B conditions. There may have been some failures indicated such that only Category IIIA or even Category II was only allowed (100 foot DH). The crew may have elected to attempt an approach hoping to sight the runway at or before DH. There may also be crew certification issues. I'm not sure on this but I think crews are required to perform a certain number of automatic landings (even in good weather conditions) to maintain proficiency and certification to perform them in actual weather conditions. Perhaps the crew was only certified for Cat II or Cat IIIA. If the conditions were marginal, they might have had a reasonable probability that conditions would permit a landing. So they can make an attempt hoping not to divert but if the Decision Height criteria are not met, they must abandon the approach at the DH. From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: landing in fog 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: 04 Dec 95 01:14:50 susanle@ix.netcom.com (Susan Leibowitz ) wrote >I'm curious...a friend of mine was coming into LA on an L-1011.. It was >on one of those very foggy days. They tried to land three times and >then gave up and landed in Las Vegas. >The rumor on the plane was that the pilot wasn't fog certified. Does >that make sense? >And why wouldn't they've been able to use instruments to land? Sounds like the airplane is certified for something like a CAT II or CAT IIIa landing. That means that at a certain decision height, the pilot must have the runway in view or the pilot must execute a "missed approach". The minimums must have been close and rising for him to try so many times. Finally, he had to give up and take the alternate. Pilots also must be qualified for these kinds of approachs, but my guess is that this pilot was...he was dealing with an airplane limitation. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@i1.net (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: landing in fog References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:51 susanle@ix.netcom.com (Susan Leibowitz ) wrote: >I'm curious...a friend of mine was coming into LA on an L-1011.. It was >on one of those very foggy days. They tried to land three times and >then gave up and landed in Las Vegas. >The rumor on the plane was that the pilot wasn't fog certified. Does >that make sense? >And why wouldn't they've been able to use instruments to land? The weather must be at or above certain minimums before the pilot can begin the approach. This minimum can vary from runway to runway, and depends on many factors, such as all the approach radio aids, and lighting working. A typical example is that the cloud ceiling must be 200 ft above the ground, or higher, and the visibility must be at least 1800 ft as measured electronically on the ground. A big airport, like LA would have runways that allow a lower visibility approch, but the pilot and aircraft must be certified to use these lower than normal minimums. If the Captain had just transitioned to this aircraft type, he would have a higher than normal minimum for his first 100 hours in command. If the weather is legal to begin the approch, the pilot will descend to the minimum allowable altitude on instruments. The non-flying pilot watches out the windscreen for the runway environment. When he has the landing runway in sight, he calls this out, and the flying pilot completes the landing visually. If they don't see the runway at the minimum altitude, the flying pilot initiates a missed approach. They might attempt another approch or two, if the weather seems to be picking up. If the weather stays below minimums, and promises not to improve, they will fly to their alternate airport to land. If the weather might improve, and they have the fuel to hold, they will do so, and wait for an improvement, while always saving enough fuel to fly to their alternate airport, where the weather is good, and keeping their minimum reserve fuel. -- Steven -- Steven Thomson St. Louis, Missouri - Gateway To The West From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dpw@dircon.co.uk (Daniel Wilder) Subject: Re: landing in fog References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: dpw@dircon.co.uk Organization: Direct Connection (Call 0181 297 2200 for info) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:51 On 29 Nov 95 01:36:19 , susanle@ix.netcom.com (Susan Leibowitz ) wrote: >I'm curious...a friend of mine was coming into LA on an L-1011.. It was >on one of those very foggy days. They tried to land three times and >then gave up and landed in Las Vegas. > >The rumor on the plane was that the pilot wasn't fog certified. Does >that make sense? > >And why wouldn't they've been able to use instruments to land? > Susan, There is no such thing as a fog certificate. However, when the weather is bad, the pilots will fly an instrument approach using a ground based radio aid for lateral and longitudinal guidance. A typical device would be an Instrument Landing System (ILS). There are several types of ILS broken down into categories. Different categories allow the aircraft to fly lower before having to commence the "go-around" and hence have a better chance of making visual contact with the runway. The category minimums are as follows : CAT I (1) - Down to 200ft with a runway visual range (RVR) of 600m (sometimes reduced to 550m with high intensity centreline lighting). CAT II (2) - Down to 100ft with a RVR of 300m. CATIIIA (3A) - Down to 0ft with a RVR of 200m CATIIIB (3B) - Down to 0ft with a RVR of 100m CATIIIC (3C) - Down to 0ft with a RVR of 0m CATIIIC has not been used commercially as the visibility would not allow the aircraft to taxi to its parking stand. However, it doesn't end here. The category that a particular airport has depends on the type of ground transmitters it uses, the runway lighting available and other factors. I would assume (although this is just a guess) that LAX would be CATIII. There is more. Just because an airport may have a certain category of ILS, not all aircraft are capable/certified to fly that category. Almost all transport aircraft will be able to fly CATI. However, to fly CAT II and III, the aircraft has to have additional hardware such as radio altimeter, dual autopilots (in CAT III case), ILS deviation warning systems etc. Finally, the pilots themselves may not be certified to fly below a certain category. All commercial instrument rated pilots will be able to fly CAT I, however, further training is required to fly CAT II & III. The pilot then has to be in current practice if he/she wishes to use them. The above relates to the UK, and as far as I am aware, the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Minimas/rules may differ in the US. Regards, Daniel. --- Daniel Wilder dpw@dircon.co.uk From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael Tate Subject: Re: landing in fog References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: mtate@voyager2.demon.co.uk Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:51 In article susanle@ix.netcom.com "Susan Leibowitz " writes: > I'm curious...a friend of mine was coming into LA on an L-1011.. > > The rumor on the plane was that the pilot wasn't fog certified. Does > that make sense? > > And why wouldn't they've been able to use instruments to land? Susan, Without being on the flight deck during the approaches it is not possible to give a definative answer but here are my thoughts... Landing a L-1011 at an airport with Runway Visual Ranges of less than about 600 meters requires the use of the Autoland system. Assuming the crew to be qualified, they would not be attempting this if not, then they would use a combination of instruments and autopilot to conduct the approach. Depending on the quality of the ILS and the servicability of the aircraft, the Captain establishes the minimum RVR required for autoland. The limiting factors now are: the reported RVR which must be at or above minimums from commencement of the approach to the Outer Marker and the requirement for the pilot to establish a visual reference at minimums. This is usually a minimum number of runway lights or the runway surface. Some aircraft can land without visual reference, I don't know if the L-1011 is one of these. The most likely reasons for the go-arounds and final diversion is being unable to comply with these requirements. Regards, Capt. Mike Tate B757/767 LHR -- Michael J Tate mtate@voyager2.demon.co.uk 100023.1424@compuserve.com From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: sanfred@ix.netcom.com (Sandra Mangold ) Subject: Re: 777 folding wing (was: Delta dumps the L1011) References: <47lve2$etj@kragar.kei.com> <4809l2$3db@kragar.kei.com> <480hdn$j7c@sphinx.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:51 In <480hdn$j7c@sphinx.Stanford.EDU> rna@sphinx.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >>Did Boeing's WA001 have the option installed? I don't think so, but it >>would have been nice to see it in production use. > >None of them have had the option so far. RE: The folding wing. Only one folding wing was built by Boeing and tested and certified at the same time as the normal wing. Both were tested for strenght on the No. 2 frame made for structural testing. I was present when both the solid and folding wing spars where broken at about 24 feet. I don't think the folding wing will be offer in the 100 series because this aircraft will be simular as the 747-SP. Smaller yet with an est. range of about 10,000 miles. It may be offered on the 300 series because this aircraft is going to be about 29 feet longer. No one who bought the 200 series has order the folding wing because of the weight of about 800 lbs. a wing. (1600 lbs. The tail of the aircraft is not a fuel carring tank. No fuel will be stored in the stab. comp -- Fred Mangold UAL 777 Maint Instructor.. From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 777 folding wing (was: Delta dumps the L1011) References: <47lve2$etj@kragar.kei.com> <4809l2$3db@kragar.kei.com> <480hdn$j7c@sphinx.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:52 >No one who bought the 200 series has order the folding wing because >of the weight of about 800 lbs. a wing. (1600 lbs. The numbers I saw at the time of United's launch order were 3,900 lbs per airframe for the folding wing, or 2,000 lbs with the hinges there but fixed, with no activation mechanism. (The latter option would allow an airline to later upgrade to the folding wing by simply adding some extra hardware.) -- 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 Dec 4 01:14:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: (new and improved) B777 order list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:52 In article , Marcus O. McElroy wrote: >Potential new customers (in alphabetical order; by no means is it complete): >Air-India, American, Delta, KLM, LOT, Malaysia, Qantas, SAS, Virgin Atlantic > >Andrew, How did you know that Delta was a potential new customer? I >herard some things myself from inside sources. We'll see if you're >right soon enough. I'm not Andrew, but Flight International did report that Delta was the principal airline pushing for the launch of the 777-300 prior to its launch. Methinks it would be suited to quite a few of their transatlantic routes, although that is just speculation in my part. Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/mjj12 mjj12@amtp.cam.ac.uk From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: korfgen@cadvision.com (K.P. Koerfgen) Subject: Re: New A330/340 models References: <480il4$j9t@sphinx.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CADVision Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:52 In article <480il4$j9t@sphinx.Stanford.EDU>, rna@sphinx.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) says: >Yesterday's (Nov 9) Financial Times mentioned Airbus was trying to go ahead >with two new versions of the A330/A340. One would be a shrink of the A330, >something called the A330M10, designed to fly 6000 miles (presumably 10 >stands for 10,000km?). The other would be a stretch of the A340 to carry >370 passengers in typical configuration (sounds like a competitor for the >777-200/300). > >The A330M10 may be the long mooted A300 replacement, depending on how >short the shrink is. Anyone know anymore? Airbus has been making presentations to several potential customers over the last few months. I work for one of those airlines. I believe Singapore Airlines and Cathay might be two others. Unfortunately for Airbus we have also ordered B777's which makes it harder for Airbus to sell us the A330M10 as an A300-600R replacement. That is what that airplane is supposed to do, replace A300's with slightly higher capacity and considerable more range. As we operate A310's and A300's, with the B777 coming, this airplane would have to have superior economics to offset the cost of operating an additional fleet. On the other hand, a scaled down B777 would still be a B777 and would hardly be much cheaper than the baseline B777. Airbus' best hope are operators for either the A330 or the A340 that need something in that size and range. I believe "M10" has nothing to do with range it probably dates back to Airbus plans from the early 70's to create a family when they had used M9 and similar designators in the initial design phase, but I would have research that. Rgds, Kurt From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:52 bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) wrote: > >DAC uses the year of launch (or projected launch) as their model >numbers for the twin-jet series. Not exactly. When the DC-9-80 was launched, Douglas skipped the series numbers between -80 and the preceding -50 as a marketing ploy: "Super 80 for the Eighties." The sub-model numbers within that series (-81, -82, -83) were initially assigned in simple sequence, and do not bear any relation to launch dates. Then came the MD-87, which at various times in its gestation was known by other names, including MD-90. As I recall, the -87 designation was related to initial service dates. Then came the MD-88, the glass-cockpit version of the MD-80 series. Douglas decided to give it a new sub-model number. -84 would have been natural, but Delta didn't want a number that suggested it was less advanced than other sub-models, so -88 was assigned. The MD-90 designation was part marketing ("MD-90 for the '90s", even though the aircraft entered service in 1995) and part a simple numerical progression to next-higher series after -80. Note that the proposed sub-models of the -90 series were initially designated -91, -92, and -93. After the launch, these were changed to -90-10, -90-30, and -90-40. So, is there a relation between Douglas numbering and years? yes. But it's far from a simple "rule". Stefano From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:53 drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) wrote: > >>Technically speaking, the MD-95 could be called the DC-9-95. > >That is probably what will be written on the Type Certificate. >The MD-80 is typed as a DC-9-80. The MD-11 is, if memory serves, also >typed as a DC-10. The type certificates for the early MD-80s definitely say "DC-9-80". I expect the ones for the -97, -88, and -90 also do. It is interesting to note, however, that the manufacturers' production plate (in the front left passenger doorway, facing front) identifies these latter aircraft as MD-87, MD-88 and MD-90-30, respectively, while the early ones do say DC-9-81 etc. I'm not sure that the MD-11 is certificated under the DC-10. Can anyone confirm this? -- Stefano From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:53 Don Stokes wrote: >Thinking about MDD's rather limited product range, vs Boeing's pretty much >complete range of >100pax aircraft (and Airbus's not-quite-as-complete but >still better than MDD's)... > >How much commonality is there between Boeing models that wouldn't be there if >you ran a mixed fleet -- eg is there a significant advantage to flying an >all-Boeing fleet, say 737s & 757s vs flying a mixed fleet (eg A319s instead of >737s)? Well, there's commonality across similar vintages of the 737, and to a slightly smaller degree between them. Pilots can be cross-qualified on the 757 and 767, so there is commonality in pilots there (Delta was the first to use this in practice, as I recall). The 747-400 has a fair amount in common in terms of avionics with the 767. In terms of strict commonality, the picture isn't all that impressive. Engines differ, as you noted. Pilot qualification differs except across some of the types. But there is an overall picture here that we should not forget. Beyond strict commonality there is a great commonality in many matters of design philosophy and the like. One poster in another thread noted that Ansett crews didn't like the BAe 146 partly because "everything worked differently." When it all comes from Boeing, yu can expect most things to work in a given way, and that's a non-negligible advantage. That said, if you're an airline picking your next wonderjet, there are other factors you consider. (1) Even when a family covers an entire range, some of its members may not cover a particular niche as well as members of a competing family. Airbus widebodies have a wider fuselage, and hence cargo capacity, than the 767. If you want a high-capacity "long thin routes" widebody right now, you can't get one from Boeing and have to settle for the A340 or MD-11. The MD-90 has very good hot-and-high performance (which helped sway Saudia to it, even though it had never operated a Douglas airliner before). So the advantage of commonality may be outweighed by a better fit to your airline's particular requirements. (2) When you're talking of largish fleets, you can afford to have pretty dissimilar fleets. You'll need so many pilots anyway that commonality with other types in the fleet isn't quite as important (except under exceptional circumstances, eg LH's desire to have their A340 crews fly A320s on the last segment of some long South America trips). Stefano From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: news@goodnet.com (News Administrator) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jeromed@goodnet.com Organization: GoodNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:53 In article , Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz says... >Is there enough in common (avionics etc) to swing a decision >from running a mixed fleet? Generally speaking, the answer is "YES". But, of course, it's more complicated than that. Buying from one manufacturer ensures a common "philosophy" of design of aircraft subsystems and a single way of cataloging parts, arranging drawings, performing maintenance procedures, etc. Sub-system spare parts commonality also helps. Speaking "big business", however, you don't want to put yourself in a "hostage" situation where the manufacturer has you over a barrel. Small airlines often feel they have this problem. Whether or not it's just a perceived problem or a real one, well, who knows. I suspect that if you operate an all Boeing fleet, Boeing sales knows you probably don't want to throw an odd type into the mix and so may feel they are in a stronger bargaining position. On the other hand, if your airline is big enough, you can order what you want (witness Southwest and United here in the states). But market forces also may force an airline's hand. A few years back, America West was looking to increase capacity. They were flying 737's (-100, -200, -300) and 757's. The 757 was bigger than was needed so it looked like the then new 737-400 would fit the bill. The only problem was the 737 production line was backed up for a couple of years and -400's would be a long wait. Lo and behold, Guiness Peat had 16 A320's sitting in the desert (ex-Braniff II and originally ordered by Pan Am) that were just the right size. A deal was struck and spare parts and training be damned, the A320 entered the HP fleet. See? Never simple. Cheers! JD From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Bank Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:54 rvriet@rwm.nl (Ronald van Riet) wrote: >spagiola wrote: >>In any case, the Avro RJ is very much improved. Do you think airlines >>like Lufthansa and Crossair would buy them in large numbers in preference >>to the Fokker jetline series if they were poor aircraft? > >That's one thing I cannot figure out (but being Dutch I may be >prejudiced): > >why buy a four-engined plane which is more expensive to operate >instead of a two-engined, just as quiet and (from personal experience) >with a much higher passenger comfort. > >I do mean, of course, the Fokker Jetliner series.... Its hard to find good info on operating costs (do you really trust manufacturers' data?) so I won't comment on that aspect. I challenge the passenger comfort aspect, though. And I don't think its simply a matter of personal preference: the BAe 146/Avro RJ has a wider cabin. When fitted with 5-abreast seating (as most are, these days), it offers far superior passenger comfort. On the other hand, I'd much rather fly a Fokker 70/100 than a 6-abreast 146/RJ, any day! The 146/RJ has other advantages as well. Its short-field performance is exceptional, letting fly into places like LCY, Lugano, Aspen, and other "tight-fit" airports with ease. Depending on door fit, Fokker 100/70 also may not be compatible with many airbridges. I'll state my bias: the BAe 146/Avro RJ is my favorite aircraft. Mainly because its such a welcome relief from the unremitting boredom of the gaggles of quasi-indistinguishable twin-jets, whether their engines be under the wing or on the aft fuselage. Stefano From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: New EMBRAER Regional Jet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:54 In article Stephan Stephany wrote: > The second protoype of the EMBRAER Regional Jet, the EMB-145, > made recently its maiden flight (successfully). Well, maybe > everybody knows, but just in case: > > - it's a low wing, T-shaped tail a/c, with 2 "rear" turbofans; > it uses the the fuselage of the EMB-130 Brasilia, but > stretched; it looks beautiful; > > Does anybody have more technical info? Okay here goes, In service date: 1997 Powerplant: Two Allison AE3007A turbofan engines (31.3kN S/L Static per engine) Length: 27.9m Wingspan: 20.0m Aspect Ratio: 7.85 Max Seating: 50, 3 abreast Max take-off weight: 19,200kg Ops empty weight: 11585kg Max payload: 5515kg Fuel Capacity: 4252 litres Take-off (S/L ISA): 1500m Landing (S/L ISA): 1290m Max cruise speed: 410 knots Hope that helps -- Mr. D.P. Rhodes Dept. of Aeronautical & Automotive tel: +44 (0)1509 223454 Engineering & Transport Studies, fax: +44 (0)1509 267613 Loughborough University of Technology, email: D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk Leics. LE11 3TU web: http://pc-ttdpr.lut.ac.uk/index.htm From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: thorlin@WILMA.BCASD.AZ.HONEYWELL.COM (Mike Thorlin) Subject: Re: New EMBRAER Regional Jet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: thorlin@WILMA.BCASD.AZ.HONEYWELL.COM Organization: Honeywell BCAS - Glendale, AZ Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:54 In article , stephan@lac.inpe.br (Stephan Stephany) writes: >The second protoype of the EMBRAER Regional Jet, the EMB-145, >made recently its maiden flight (successfully). Well, maybe >everybody knows, but just in case: > >- it's a low wing, T-shaped tail a/c, with 2 "rear" turbofans; > it uses the the fuselage of the EMB-130 Brasilia, but > stretched; it looks beautiful; > >Does anybody have more technical info? In addition, the EMB-145's standard equipment includes the Honeywell Primus-1000 Integrated Avionics system. 4 8x7 in crt displays including Primary Flight displays, MultiFunction Displays, EICAS ( Engine Instrument /Crew Alerting System. Also standard are Allison AE 3007A high bypass turbofan engines with FADEC control ( Full Authority Digital Engine Control). -- Mike Thorlin Honeywell, Business and Commuter Aviation Systems Glendale, Arizona (Phoenix) From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peisdaha@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Peter Isendahl) Subject: BMW Rolls-Royce powered GVs First Flight Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:54 See additional info at: http://www.netmbx.de/brr/welcome.html Peter Isendahl peisdaha@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: baco-new@seatimes.com (Byron Acohido) Subject: USAir 427 hearings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Seattle Times Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:57 Here are stories from the recent NTSB hearings on USAir 427. I'd welcome any feedback. Thanks, Byron Acohido, aerospace reporter, Seattle Times. FILE NUMBER 2153494 PUBLICATION DATE 11/19/95 NEWSPAPER THE SEATTLE TIMES, COPYRIGHT 1995 EDITION FINAL SECTION NEWS PAGE A23 STORY SIZE 29 INCHES HEADLINE FEDERAL SAFETY BOARD ASKS FOR ACTION ON 737 CONTROL SYSTEM BYLINE BYRON ACOHIDO CREDIT SEATTLE TIMES AEROSPACE REPORTER ORIGIN OF STORY SPRINGFIELD, VA. KEYWORD-HIT. SPRINGFIELD, Va. - Without declaring the Boeing 737 unsafe, safety authorities are stepping up actions to address several troubling weaknesses in the control system of the world's most popular jetliner. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded an unusual three-day hearing last week urging The Boeing Co. and the Federal Aviation Administration to take prompt action to improve the 737's flight controls. Aviation officials questioned whether the 737's flight-control system should be redesigned - an astronomical expense considering the complexity of the system and the more than 2,600 planes in service. Yet the safety board is no closer to explaining why USAir Flight 427, a Boeing 737-300, flipped out of calm, clear skies on Sept. 8, 1994, on approach to landing in Pittsburgh. Nor can authorities say why a United 737-200 crashed under similar circum stances in Colorado Springs, Colo., four years ago. Pilots have reported several hundred cases of 737 flight controls moving inadvertently in flight - more than 45 in the last 14 months. "How many more?" Relatives of the 132 people killed on Flight 427 are pressing for answers. At the hearing, many of them were briefed by safety-board chairman Jim Hall and lead investigator Tom Haueter. Jon Hamley, whose wife, Sarah Slocum-Hamley, was Flight 427's lea d flight attendant, has closely tracked the investigation. He noted that 737s have crashed in England, Turkey, El Salvador and Nigeria since Flight 427 went down. "How many more 737s have to go down before they do something?" he asked. "I'm no expert. . . . but 28 years' worth of incidents? Four crashes since (Flight) 427?" In Boeing's view, deceased pilots Peter Germano and Charles Emmett could be to blame for the crash of Flight 427. Jim Kerrigan, principal 737 engineer, testified that a re-creation of the crash shows the USAir jet's rudder could have swung to the extreme left, causing the fatal dive. But Kerrigan said Boeing has been unable to pinpoint "any particular failure mode." The only other possibility is pilot error, he said. Lingering questions Boeing and safety officials still call the 737 one of the safest jets. But other testimony and records shed light on lingering questions: -- Rudder hardover: Officials are concerned the rudder, the part of the vertical tail piece that controls the jet's left/right heading, could deflect to an acute angle in flight. In certifying the 737 as safe in 1967, the FAA never required Boeing to prove the jet could safely recover from a rudder hardover; it was deemed improbable. But officials now know of many ways the rudder can, in theory at least, swing hardover when dirty hydraulic fluid moves through the flight-control system. NTSB chief technical adviser William Laynor said there's been no action because there's no con crete evidence of any rudder hardover in flight. Boeing is studying the probability of rudder hardovers in flight, and the FAA has called for a probe into how sensitive the 737's flight controls are to dirty fluid. But in Seattle Friday, Boeing President Phil Condit said he doubted that dirty hydraulic fluid caused 737 flight controls to malfunction. "I don't see any information that would tell me that," Condit said. "None. We have done lots of testing. Boy, I don't see anything." -- Rudder reversal: One type of hardover can occur when an out-of-adjustment rudder valve jams and moves too far, causing the rudder to deflect in the wrong direction. The FAA has ordered airlines to replace an internal valve part and verify proper adjustment of the valve to eliminate the possibility of rudder reversal. But planes with upgraded valves still have problems. NTSB records show the rudder of an America West 737 moved inadvertently in late August and again in early September near Phoenix. The jet's valve was upgraded in response to the FAA order last May. After the second incident, the upgraded valve was removed and sent to its manufacturer, Parker Hannifin, for examination, records show. Haueter, the safety board's chief investigator, said he was unaware of the status of that valve. -- Yaw damper: This computer makes thousands of small rudder adjustments during flight. It has been blamed for hundreds of inadvertent rudder movements over the years. But officials say there's no danger because the yaw damper can only command compa ratively small rudder movements, and pilots can easily switch the yaw damper off. But Boeing flight-controls engineer Richard Kullberg testified that the yaw damper can move the rudder more than twice its normal limit, should a stand-by rudder valve jam. Levers on the stand-by valve of both the United jet and the USAir jet were found "galled," or worn from rubbing too close to each other, indicating they may have jammed. Kullberg said Boeing is working on a "service bulletin" advising airlines to install a special bushing to make the stand-by valve less susceptible to jamming, but the improvement is voluntary. He said Boeing does not consider the matter a safety issu e. Jean McGrew, chief 737 project engineer, testified that Boeing is evaluating improvements to the yaw damper but wouldn't describe them. Though Boeing contends "the yaw damper is not involved in the accident in any way," the company does believe the reliability of the device needs improvement, McGrew said. -- Redesigning flight controls: A rudder hardover is especially worrisome when the 737 is slowing and descending on approach to landing. At lower speeds, the pilots lose the ability to counter the effects of the rudder by turning the control wheel i n the opposite direction, which extends wing panels called ailerons. Retired USAir Capt. Herb LeGrow, representing the Airline Pilots Association, questioned Boeing engineers about the possibility of redesigning the ailerons and/or rudder to give pilots more ability to recover from a rudder hardover at lower speeds. One way to do that would be to restrict the rudder's range of movement once it becomes airborne. Pilots only need an acute rudder movement in a specific emergency, when one engine shuts down during takeoff. In that case, deflecting the rudder hardove r helps keep the plane flying straight ahead. Or the ailerons could be made bigger or redesigned to extend at more acute angles. But redesigning the 737's flight controls would likely require the plane to be largely recertified, an ALPA source said. Art Wolk, an attorney representing families of victims from the Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh crashes, said authorities have more than enough evidence to order major 737 improvements. "Here's an airplane that's telegraphing it's going to crash, and nobody is willing to ground it and make Boeing redesign the rudder," Wolk said. "This is like the Simpson jury wanting a video tape of the crime in order to convict Simpson." **END OF STORY REACHED** 2/ FILE NUMBER 2153094 PUBLICATION DATE 11/17/95 NEWSPAPER THE SEATTLE TIMES, COPYRIGHT 1995 EDITION FINAL SECTION BUSINESS PAGE D4 STORY SIZE 13 INCHES HEADLINE PILOT AT 737 CRASH HEARING: WAKE TURBULENCE IS ROUTINE BYLINE BYRON ACOHIDO CREDIT SEATTLE TIMES AEROSPACE REPORTER EXTRA KEYWORDS AIRPLANE ACCIDENTS KEYWORD-HIT. SPRINGFIELD, Va. - If USAir Flight 427 flew into turbulence swirling from the wingtips of another jet flying four miles ahead, the encounter was entirely routine. That's what Federal Aviation Administration test pilot Les Berven concluded after repeatedly flying a Boeing 737 into the "wake vortexes" of another jet as part of a $1 million experiment last September. Berven's testimony, given yesterday at a special National Transportation Safety Board hearing, seemed to undermine speculation that a wake vortex encounter disoriented pilots Peter Germano and Charles Emmett, causing them to fly a fully-loaded 737-30 0 jet into the ground. The NTSB has been unable to explain why the USAir jet piloted by Germano and Emmett suddenly flipped out of calm, clear skies the evening of Sept. 8, 1994, in Pittsburgh. Nor can authorities say why a United Airlines 737-200 crashed under similar cir cumstances in Colorado Springs four years ago. Berven said he purposely flew more than 200 times into wake vortexes and proved what many experts and pilots have long believed: Wake vortex encounters are inconsequential for big jets. "I think we covered just about everything that could be done. We went up and down and crossways," Berven testified. "You can pull up in there with absolute impunity. You can fly in any way you want. You can hit any one or both of the vortexes without a controllability problem." Despite Berven's testimony, The Boeing Co. used the same wake vortex test results to lay more groundwork for the startled-pilot theory. Boeing test pilot Mike Carriker, who participated in the experiment, testified that a wake vortex encounter could take airline pilots by surprise and confuse them. Carriker said most U.S. pilots have "average" flying skills. Carriker showed a videotape of one test flight piloted by himself and USAir Capt. John Cox in which the test aircraft hit a wake vortex and rolled sharply to the left. His testimony appeared to contradict Berven's assertions. But then Cox took the witness stand and pointed out that he and Carriker had purposely let the airplane drift into the vortex at an unusual angle - with their hands and feet off the controls and the autopilot turned off. "We literally had our feet flat on the floor and our hands straight up," Cox said. Commercial pilots routinely encounter wake vortexes and instinctively make the small control adjustments needed to smooth out flight within seconds, Cox said, adding that he has never become disoriented while encountering wake vortexes on actual fl ights. Another theory for both the Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh crashes holds that the rudder system jammed and moved the rudder sharply without it being commanded to do so. Flight 427's flight data recorder, which charts the aircraft's trajectory, shows the jet fell from the sky in a way that can only be explained by a sudden, acute movement of the rudder. Moreover, the cockpit voice recorder captured the sound of the engines revving, consistent with the rise in engine noise that occurs when a rudder is deflected in flight. **END OF STORY REACHED** FILE NUMBER 2152862 PUBLICATION DATE 11/16/95 NEWSPAPER THE SEATTLE TIMES, COPYRIGHT 1995 EDITION FINAL SECTION BUSINESS PAGE C1 STORY SIZE 25 INCHES HEADLINE OFFICIALS URGED TO LOOK HARD AT DIRTY 737 FLUID BYLINE BYRON ACOHIDO CREDIT SEATTLE TIMES AEROSPACE REPORTER ORIGIN OF STORY SPRINGFIELD, VA. KEYWORD-HIT. SPRINGFIELD, Va. - Aviation safety authorities are being urged to take a harder look at whether dirty hydraulic fluid may be causing the flight controls of Boeing 737 jetliners to regularly malfunction in flight. But a Boeing Co. hydraulics expert, Richard Kullberg, testified yesterday he could not think of any detective work that hasn't already been done. Those developments came yesterday as the National Transportation Safety Board opened an unusual hearing to publicly air its investigation of two unsolved 737 crashes in four years - and more than 45 recent cases of flight controls moving inadvertentl y on 737 flights. A USAir 737-300 inexplicably flipped out of the sky Sept. 8, 1994, in Pittsburgh, four years after a United 737-200 crashed under similar circumstances in Colorado Springs, Colo. The two crashes killed 156 in all. Despite extensive investigations, th e safety board has been unable to solve either accident. Investigators revealed new evidence yesterday indicating the USAir jet's rudder swung to an extreme position, twisting the fully-loaded Boeing 737-300 jetliner into a fatal dive. Recent analysis of sounds captured on the cockpit voice recorder indicate the engines changed pitch as the rudder moved acutely to the left. But the central mystery remains whether pilot error or a mechanical failure caused the rudder to move so drastically. Boeing engineer Kullberg, who also serves as a designated Federal Aviation Administration representative in charge of certifying 737 and 757 flight-control systems, reiterated the company stance that there is no evidence of equipment failure in eithe r the Colorado Springs or Pittsburgh crashes. Kullberg characterized the 737s long-running flight control problems as posing no safety hazards. Even so, he said Boeing recently responded in writing to 12 of 27 concerns outlined in a special "critical design review" of the 737's flight control system completed by the FAA last May. Among other things, the FAA called for tests to determine how sensitive the 737's flight controls are to dirty hydraulic fluid as well as for an investigation into all the ways the 737's wing and tail panels, including the rudder, can move inadverten tly in flight. In response to questioning from safety board Chairman Jim Hall, Kullberg said Boeing has responded to the FAA's suggestions with extensive written analysis, though he admitted none of the analysis is supported by any actual testing. The FAA is now reviewing Boeing's response. But Mike Zielinski, a member of the FAA review team, said no process exists to formally implement the recommendations outlined in the agency's special review. "Personally I have a concern of a lack of closure and continuing discussion with no real resolution," Zielinski said. Kullberg testified, "We still are talking about possibly running some other tests," but said he was "at a loss to come up with anything that would make sense that hasn't already been done." Other witnesses suggested a couple of possibly fruitful areas that Boeing and safety authorities thus far have left unexplored. FAA hydraulics expert Werner Koch called for someone to conduct tests to establish how "silting" of hydraulic fluid contaminants affects the 737's rudder over a long period. Heavy concentrations of contaminants were found in both the United and USAir jets that crashed. The NTSB never analyzed the contaminants retrieved from the wreckage in Colorado Springs, and it permitted Boeing to conduct comparatively crude tests of contaminants like those recovered in Pittsburgh. (The tests were conducted under conditions not likely to exist in flight.) Koch said the possible effects of contamination silting now deserve closer scrutiny. "As a result of lack of a smoking gun, that might be a logical place to look next," Koch said, broadly describing the kind of testing that investigators could do next. The safety board's Hall then turned to NTSB flight controls investigator Greg Phillips and said, "Mr. Phillips, is that something we can do?" "Yes, it is," Phillips responded. "Well, let's do it," Hall said. Paul Knerr, a member of an engineering-standards group, said clarification of how many of the world's 2,600 737s may be flying with highly contaminated fluid needs to be addressed as well. After investigators retrieved highly contaminated fluid from the USAir jet, they took more than 100 random fluid samples from 21 other 737s and found 22 percent of the samples were highly contaminated. That finding shocked the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), a group that establishes fluid standards for auto, factory, aircraft, weapons and space systems. Knerr, vice president of engineering for Canyon Engineers, a hydraulics component manufacturer based in Valencia, Calif., said the SAE had assumed jets were flying with cleaner fluid, and he noted that Boeing has no established contamination limit fo r fluid used on its airplanes. Yet it is well-known that debris can readily contaminate hydraulic components in the manufacturing process and when they are being used and serviced on airplanes. The SAE is now working with the FAA to create a contamination-level standard for commercial jets, Knerr said. In the meantime, Knerr asked Hall to support an effort to collect and analyze fluid samples drawn during flights of an older 737. These samples would show whether debris tends to circulate in higher concentrations when the airplane is shaking. Such information could help investigators sort out whether dirty fluid should be considered more of a potential threat during takeoffs a nd landings, when the aircraft is vibrating heavily. It would also help parts makers, like Knerr, design better components. "For a component manufacturer to know that the (contamination) level varies widely is very important in our design," Knerr said. **END OF STORY REACHED** FILE NUMBER 21526379 PUBLICATION DATE 11/15/95 NEWSPAPER THE SEATTLE TIMES,COPYRIGHT 1995 SECTION BUSINESS PAGE D1 STORY SIZE 22 INCHES HEADLINE EVIDENCE FROM USAIR CRASH SUGGESTS SHARP RUDDER MOVE BYLINE BYRON ACOHIDO CREDIT SEATTLE TIMES AEROSPACE REPORTER ORIGIN OF STORY SPRINGFIELD, VA. KEYWORD-HIT. SPRINGFIELD, Va. - Investigators today revealed evidence indicating that USAir Flight 427's rudder swung to an extreme position, twisting the fully loaded Boeing 737-300 jetliner into a fatal dive outside Pittsburgh 14 months ago. Moments before the rudder moved, the jetliner encountered wingtip turbulence from a 727 trijet flying four miles ahead, recent testing shows. Those findings emerged today at an unusual hearing of the National Transportation Safety Board to publicly air details of its so-far futile attempt to solve the Sept. 8, 1994, crash. The safety board's acoustic expert, James Cash, described how investigators analyzed three "thumps" captured on the cockpit voice recorder moments before the jet ran into trouble. Similar thumps turned up on flight tests in which a 737 was purposely flown back and forth into the wingtip turbulence of a 727 trijet flying a few miles ahead. Cash said sounds recreated on the flight tests showed "the source of the thumps . . . was most probably an encounter with the wake turbulence of the preceding 727 aircraft." The tests, which cost $1 million, also revealed that 737 engines produce a heightened roar when the rudder is deflected to an acute angle in flight. Cash testified that Flight 427's cockpit recorder captured an engine roar - matching the roar produ ced in the tests - just moments after the thumps, indicating an acute rudder movement. The central mystery remains whether the wake vortex encounter, normally a routine event, caused veteran pilots Peter Germano and Charles Emmett to panic and stomp on the rudder control pedals, which would clear The Boeing Co. of liability in the acc ident. Representatives from the Air Line Pilots Association are supporting the other leading crash theory: that the rudder moved sharply on its own, due to a malfunction, just after the plane encountered the turbulence. NTSB Chairman Jim Hall opened the hearing acknowledging that despite 50,000 investigative staff hours and millions of dollars worth of lab and flight tests, investigators have been unable to explain the crash of Flight 427, which killed all 132 peop le on board. Nor has it been able to solve the similar crash of a United Airlines 737 four years ago in Colorado Springs, Colo. All 25 people on board died in that accident. Moreover, independent aviation experts have recently begun questioning whether there may be a correlation between the two crashes and more than 45 reported incidents of flight controls moving inadvertently on 737 flights in the past 14 months. Few expect the hearing, scheduled to run through Friday, to produce any breakthroughs. At best, insiders said, they might reveal which way investigators are leaning on the two leading theories: that the 737's rudder system drastically malfunctioned or that the USAir pilots overreacted to the wingtip turbulence. Among the witnesses scheduled to testify is Malcolm Cohen, a spatial disorientation expert with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Ames Research Center. Cohen is expected to address the issue of whether Germano and Emmett may have been so relaxed flying a routine approach in clear, calm air that they were startled by unexpected turbulence, causing them to animatedly adjust the flight controls. The startled-pilot theory has been gaining popularity. A member of the investigation team, who was not identified, recently told The Washington Post that co-pilot Emmett was so relaxed he used a fake French accent to acknowledge a corporate jet flyin g by: "Oh yaa, I seee zee Jetstream," Emmett is reported to have said. Oddly, previously released transcripts of Flight 427's cockpit voice recorder tape do not describe Emmett using a French accent when making that statement. Later in the hearing, the safety board is expected to re-examine the possibility that dirty hydraulic fluid caused the rudder to move on its own, putting Flight 427 into its fatal dive. Investigators have acknowledged that dirty hydraulic fluid can, in theory, cause a 737's rudder to suddenly reverse. Authorities also know dirty fluid can cause the rudder to move to an extreme position, in response to a command for slight movement from the pilot or the yaw damper, a computer that makes minor rudder adjustments during flight. But investigators say exhaustive testing and analysis have turned up no evidence of such a malfunction occurring on either the USAir or United jets that crashed. Last May, the Federal Aviation Administration completed a special "critical design review" of the 737's flight control systems. The FAA called for a new combined investigation of the Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh crashes. The agency also said an investigation was needed to determine how sensitive the 737's flight controls are to dirty fluid. Mike Zielinski, a member of the FAA review team, testified today that Boeing has only recently responded to recommended safety improvements outlined in the review. Zielinski said Boeing's response was under review, but under questioning he acknowle dged that no formal process exists to implement the agency's suggestions. "Personally I have a concern of a lack of closure and continuing discussion with no real resolution," Zielinski said. **END OF STORY REACHED**  From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: alexandc10@aol.com (Alexandc10) Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: alexandc10@aol.com (Alexandc10) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:58 I'm not sure exactly what the WX report was at the time of the incident, BUT...I'n defense of the pilots, let me point out a few things: The legal ability of a part 121 aircraft to accept an approach is predicated on visibility ONLY, not ceiling. As long as the field was reporting acceptable visibility, then the approach was legal. In fact, it MAY have been the ONLY legal option: The winds may have exceeded the Aircraft's X/Wind limit, and AA's ops specifications probably prohibit circling approaches at night. In general, given the level nature of a non-precision approach in its final stages, the notion of "going in to take a look" is a reasonably acceptable one. If you see the runway with adequate visibility- you land. If you don't, you climb. The transition to a missed approach in a non-precision approach is generally easier than for a precision approach: it is from a level condition to a climbing one, rather than from descending to climbing. The problem here was that for some reason, the A/C was not at an appropriate altitude. THAT, the crew may be blamed for. Additionally, the GPWS system should have warned the pilots of excess terrain closure, compelling them to initiate immediate throttle-up/climb. Alex From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Joseph D. Farrell" Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Benefits Litigation Concepts Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:58 >>>although the conditions may have seemed extreme to you, I can only assume you are not a commercial airline pilot. These conditions, although less than desirable, were well within the day in and day out parameters of the aircraft, pilots, and runway. This is the weather we make our living in. Although the wind was strong, it was relatively down the runway. With a 20- 45 kt headwind componant, the groundspeed was not a factor for a 6900 ft, runway. The crosswind componant was also quite small. The problem seems to be an incorrect altimeter setting/ indication problem as the pilots were 300 ft. lower than they thought.<<< So, the fact remains that the ceiling was 800 feet and the Jepps R15 approach into BDL requires a 1080 foot ceiling for a class D/E a/c, which the last time I checked an MD-80 was. My point was the approach was not safe given the existing wx, something tells me that the pilots wanted into the airport for operational reasons, after all it was 1 am. Runway length had nothing to do with my post, given the 25 kt headwind (more or less) it was certainly no probelm From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIESIN Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:58 If anyone noticed, Aviation Week did not cover the incident. I contacted them and they said they did not cover it because "incidents like these are not uncommon." I beg to differ! They said they would provide me with details if they could...I will share them if they follow-up. Dale Tuttle dtuttle@ciesin.org From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills) Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Power Technologies Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:59 brianmccar@aol.com (BrianMcCar) wrote: >possibly due to the disruption in control tower routine. Since there was >one hell of a front passing through, the barometric pressure must have >been changing significantly. Here's some information I got courtesy of kbrews@ROSSBY.METR.uoknor.edu (Keith Brewster) Anyone following the reports on the MD80 incident at Windsor Locks? If I interpret an AP wire report correctly, NTSB is saying the altimeter setting given was 29.51, while at landing it was 29.35 and seemed to be leaning against wind shear as a factor. Looking at the SAO's... ..tough night for flight... BDL SA 0250 22 SCT M27 OVC 6R-F 025/61/57/1624G30/960/ 8/5/// 57052 6005// PK WND 1639/32= BDL SA 0350 22 SCT M27 OVC 10R- 992/62/57/1626G35/951/ PK WND 1638/35 PRESFR= BDL SA 0452 22 SCT M28 OVC 5R- 963/61/57/1628G40/942/ 400640035/ PK WND 1642/18 PRESFR= BDL SA 0551 17 SCT M28 OVC 3R 938/61/58/1725G40/935/ PK WND 1743/18 PRESFR/ 8/5/// 55086 6040/ 10063 20060= BDL SP 0617 M20 OVC 2R+ 1630G36/930/ PRESFR= BDL RS 0651 M20 OVC 3R+ 903/62/59/1728G43/925/ PRESFR= The winds aloft (hgt in m MSL, speed in m/s (~kts/2)), this is from Long Island, 00z. Note that shows 70kts at about 1000 ft msl. OKX PRES HGHT TMPC DWPC DRCT SPED 1008.00 20.00 16.00 15.00 160.00 9.00 1005.00 46.56 16.20 13.70 160.00 11.24 1000.00 91.00 16.00 14.00 160.00 15.00 975.14 305.00 14.58 13.47 160.00 34.00 972.00 332.43 14.40 13.40 160.45 33.82 940.55 610.00 13.26 10.77 165.00 32.00 912.00 870.13 12.20 8.30 177.82 32.00 907.23 914.00 11.94 8.25 180.00 32.00 874.72 1219.00 10.17 7.86 180.00 31.00 I believe the time of landing was 12:57 EST, 0557 Is it common to have a two-hour old altimeter? (29.51 was reported at 0350). By back of the envelope that would give an altitude error of about 150-200 ft. Further, the ridge is ~850 feet higher than the field and 3 miles west. Winds were from 160, and the ridge centerline is roughly 190-010 As a glider pilot fond of ridge soaring, my thoughts go immediately to the ridge wave. On such a violent night, the ridge wave on the downwind side might have been 2000 fpm downdraft extending out 1/2 mile from the ridge (just my guesses). I could even visualize turbulent eddies or rotor clouds several miles downwind. Wadda you jet jockeys say? Anything here out of the ordinary? From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jac@panix.com (John Clear) Subject: Re: ground control hand signals? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:59 In article Michael Mills writes: >could someone who is familiar with the hand/light signals of an airport >ground controller (on foot, guiding planes into gates and such) give me >a few basic patterns (right,left,stop,etc.)? thanks for any/all advice. > You really need the pictures to help describe these, but I'll do my best to describe the various signals. Everyone has a slightly different way of doing these, so they will vary slightly in the real world. Stop - hands crossed over ones head. wrists on top of one another. Emergency stop - arms waved frantically overhead (as in, Hey, Don't Hit Me!) Start engine - rotate one arm at the elbow while indicating which engine you want started with the other hand (number of fingers held up) Pull chocks - hands at sides, thumbs pointing out, keep arms stiff and point up with thumbs Insert chocks - opposite of 'pull chocks' Move Forward - arms straight from elbow across the shoulders, bend at elbows and wave arms (I've seen this one done with arms out to the front, but it is harder to see that way) Slow down - hands flat, arms straight, look as though you are trying to push down on the air Right turn - point with left hand (remember you are facing the plane, so everything is reversed), and move right arm in the 'move forward' manner Left turn - opposite of 'right turn' kill engine - slice across throat John -- John `SpaceCadet` Clear - jac@expert.cc.purdue.edu, jac@panix.com Purdue Daemons; Purdue Pilots, Inc. PP-ASEL 1Lt, CAP-NYW http://www.vet.purdue.edu/~jac From kls Mon Dec 4 01:14:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@i1.net (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: ground control hand signals? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:14:59 Michael Mills wrote: >could someone who is familiar with the hand/light signals of an airport >ground controller (on foot, guiding planes into gates and such) give me >a few basic patterns (right,left,stop,etc.)? thanks for any/all advice. I worked for Southwest on the ramp for a short period of time. We were trained in all aspects of ground handling and ramp operations, so that any ramp agent could perform any function to keep things moving. When an aircraft was approaching the gate area, I would stand on the centerline and move my arms up and down as it captured the centerline and if it continued to track on it. If the nosewheel was off to the right, I would point in that direction with my arm. As the nosewheel approached the stop line for the type of aircraft, I would move my arms up over my head and touch both hands together as the nosewheel touched the line. I would then touch both thumbs together over my head, as the chocks were placed around the nosewheel. My favorite was driving the pushback tug. The first time I attempted this, I got confused on which way to steer to get the tail where I wanted it. I had that 737 all over the ramp, before I finally got it right. Talk about embarassed! The Captain realized it was my first time, and gave me a cheerful thumbs up, as well as words of encouragement passed on through the agent on the headset. Their attitude was typical of Southwest. After a couple more pushbacks, I got real good at it. One afternoon, I showed up for work, and there was a huge swarm of bees around the gate I was working. Evidently a queen bee was attempting to find a place to stay and attached herself to the side of a fuel truck. Some of the bees stayed with her, and clung to the side of it like a big inverted cone. It was OK, until the fuel truck departed. Then a huge swarm of bees started flying around in a cloud near where the truck had been parked at the jetway. A 737 had landed and was bound for that gate. Nobody wanted to go up there and marshall him in. Since I was the junior guy, I was elected to do it. I hate bees. They terrify me. I had to stand on top of the tug and guide this aircraft in, with all these bees flying around me. When the aircraft was ready to pushback, I was on the headset, walking back with the aircraft. It was OK at first, but as we pushed back the bees came back and started swarming around me. I couldn't go anywhere, and my mind raced. It was a 737-300, with the big fans, so I grabbed the mike and said "clear to start two". Usually we start number one, as the aircraft clears the jetway, and the pilot seemed a little puzzled, but number two started to spin. As that big fan picked up speed, the swarm of bees were sucked into it like a big vacuum cleaner. I have lots of other tales, but I won't bore you with them here. Just let me say, I have a huge respect for ramp agents after that job! -- Steven Thomson St. Louis, Missouri - Gateway To The West From kls Mon Dec 4 01:15:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Peter Herrmann) Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.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: 04 Dec 95 01:15:00 In article , rvriet@rwm.nl (Ronald van Riet) writes: |>why buy a four-engined plane which is more expensive to operate |>instead of a two-engined, just as quiet and (from personal experience) |>with a much higher passenger comfort. One advantage of the Avro RJ is its excellent STOL performance. AFAIK, it is the only jet aircraft which can land at many city-near airports like London City, Berlin Tempelhof, Belfast City, and Stockholm Bromma or at touristic sites like Florence or Lugano. This causes a flexibility which might be a reason for its popularity among European regional airlines. |>I do mean, of course, the Fokker Jetliner series.... |> |>Especially in the case of Crossair: Swissair had the Fokker 100, |>Crossair (its subsidiary) the 145; now who owns who??? Again, the short runways (ie. Lugano and Bern) might be the reason, too. |>Many happy landings And many happy take offs :-) 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 Mon Dec 4 01:15:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:15:00 On 29 Nov 95 01:36:18 , alfonso@melbpc.org.au (Vince Alfonso) said: Vince> Jennings Heilig wrote: >While I've never flown on either a BAE 146 or now the Avro RJ (same >same), I have talked with several cabin crew who absolutely hated >them. This has been some time ago (Air Cal flight attendants). They >stated that compared to Boeing or McDD aircraft, everything was >poorly designed, worked backward, and was generally a pain. Perhaps >the captain sits on the right? Vince> The Captain still sits on the left, but all the electrical Vince> switches operate in reverse position to Boeing et al. (ie down Vince> is off) Oh, no. Tell me this isn't so. Hasn't anyone learned a damned thing in the last fifty years? They lost airplanes in World War II because of the reversed switch conventions between the US and the UK. This is one of the first bad examples they drag out in every introductory human factors course in the world. It was my understanding that the JARs, FARs, et cetera of every civilized country had settled on switches that go up or right for on, knobs that turn clockwise for more or on, etc, no matter how one wired one's house. The paranthetical remark makes me wonder if the poster is confused--does down being off refer to Boeing or BAE aircraft? -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html From kls Mon Dec 4 01:15:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: logier@qus102.qld.npb.telecom.com.au (Rob Logie) Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telstra Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:15:01 ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) writes: >One humorous note: At one airline early in the BAe-146 service, >the "BAe" in was understood to mean "Bring Another engine", as there >were problems bringing the engines into service - the gas generator >section was originally designed as an APU... I have been told that the BAE146's being a four engined airplane is just a rumour. The are really a tri-jet with a spare ..... |-) Cheers -- Rob Logie, | The opinions expressed are mine alone and in Telstra Corp. ACN 051 775 556 | no-way reflect the views or policies of the ITG NP Support, Queensland | Telstra Corporation Limited EMAIL: logier@qus102.qld.npb.telecom.com.au| "These are my opinions alone" From kls Mon Dec 4 01:15:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: l7matt7@aol.com (L7Matt7) Subject: Paine Field/TRAMCO Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: l7matt7@aol.com (L7Matt7) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Dec 95 01:15:01 Pacific 737-300 with only white paint on it (so far), a Luxair 737,an LTU 767-300, and an Alaska Airlines MD-80, N937AS which was the aircraft I was waxing the wing fillet faring on, and was also removing one of those "cartoon speech bubbles" from the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer. Outside at TRAMCO there are 2 Alitalia 767-300s with EI- registration (Ireland), they must be GPA(?) leases to Alitalia. Also, there is another 767-300 with no paint, just the yellow protective coating that is on the fuselage when it comes from Boeing. This was my first day of work at TRAMCO and I also live up by Paine Field where TRAMCO and Boeing's 747,767,777 plant is. If anyone would be interested in a weekly update on what aircraft are currently there, please send e-mail back to the newsgroup or me at " L7Matt7@aol.com " saying that you would like me to do this. From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Paine Field/TRAMCO 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: 10 Dec 95 02:51:38 In article , L7Matt7 wrote: >Pacific 737-300 with only white paint on it (so far), a Luxair 737,an LTU >767-300, and an Alaska Airlines MD-80, N937AS which was the aircraft I was >waxing the wing fillet faring on, and was also removing one of those >"cartoon speech bubbles" from the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer. >Outside at TRAMCO there are 2 Alitalia 767-300s with EI- registration >(Ireland), they must be GPA(?) leases to Alitalia. Possibly. I do know that Ansett has some 767s on lease to Alitalia, so it could be some of these (I think the aircraft are from Ansett's leasing subsidiary, so the fact that the aircraft are EI registration may not be terribly significant). > Also, there is another >767-300 with no paint, just the yellow protective coating that is on the >fuselage when it comes from Boeing. This was my first day of work at >TRAMCO and I also live up by Paine Field where TRAMCO and Boeing's >747,767,777 plant is. If anyone would be interested in a weekly update on >what aircraft are currently there, please send e-mail back to the >newsgroup or me at " L7Matt7@aol.com " saying that you would like me to >do this. I'd be happy to see you post such a summary in sci.aeronautics.airliners (so long as Karl Swartz is amenable) or alternately in misc.transport.air-industry. I just read that America West is dumping its maintenance in favor of outsourcing it to TRAMCO. RNA From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: (new and improved) B777 order list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:38 In article Michael Jennings wrote: >In article , >Marcus O. McElroy wrote: >>Potential new customers (in alphabetical order; by no means is it complete): >>Air-India, American, Delta, KLM, LOT, Malaysia, Qantas, SAS, Virgin Atlantic >> >>Andrew, How did you know that Delta was a potential new customer? I >>herard some things myself from inside sources. We'll see if you're >>right soon enough. > > I'm not Andrew, but Flight International did report that >Delta was the principal airline pushing for the launch of the 777-300 >prior to its launch. Methinks it would be suited to quite a few of >their transatlantic routes, although that is just speculation in my >part. Earlier this year, it was reported that Delta was involved in the development of the 777-100X, not the -300. I seriously doubt the -300 will pick up any significant orders in the US. The -300 is a B747-100/200 replacement. Although, the B747 is one of Boeing's most profitable program, the B747 has never been very successful in the US because of its size. Nevertheless, I think the -300 will be extremely successful. I believe Delta was also involved in the initial B777 design and development, so was American. I also read it in the newswire that in the next six months, Boeing is expected to reach the 300 milestone for the B777 (currently there are 230 B777s on order). The new customers mentioned include Air China, Malaysian, Virgin, Air-India, Alitalia, ILFC, Northwest, and Delta. The most surprising ones (at least to me) are Alitalia and Northwest. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mmceach199@aol.com (MMceach199) Subject: Re: ground control hand signals? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: mmceach199@aol.com (MMceach199) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:39 I am currently in the USAF and work on the flightline. I don't know if you've already have your answer, but i'll see if i can help. To stop a plane: form an "X" over your head with your arms. To motion a plane forward: point your arms at the plane and motion it toward you (bend your arms at the elbow) to back a plane up: with your arms at your side, bring your arms up untill they point at the plane and then bring them down again. continue untill the plane is where you want it. to turn a plane right: with one arm, point in the direction you want the plane to turn and with the other arm, motion it forword or backward. to turn a plane left: the oppisite of turning right. if an engine is on fire: with one arm, point at the engine, and with the other arm, form a figure eight over your head. if the flight crew need to evacuate the aircraft: with both arms at waist level and thumbs up, bring both arms above head forming a large "v". motion several times. to lower flaps: both arms straight out in front with one hand over the other (palms together) sererate hands while allowing wrists to remain touching. to raise flaps: to oppisite of lowering flaps. There are many more NATO approved ground control hand signals to use. The important thing to remember is to always keep eye-contact with the pilot at all times to insure he/she understand your intentions. Ground control safety is alway the most important thing to insure. you can replace equipment, but you can't replace people! One more suggestion, have you tried any libraries? Also, local airports. Hope this helped. Marc McEachern Bellevue, Ne (Offutt AFB) From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Subject: Re: ground control hand signals? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The American University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:39 In article Michael Mills writes: > >could someone who is familiar with the hand/light signals of an airport >ground controller (on foot, guiding planes into gates and such) give me >a few basic patterns (right,left,stop,etc.)? thanks for any/all advice. Get the book called "Symbol Sourcebook" which most public library systems have. It is large and has a white cover. It contains an entire page of all the ramp signals. From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael Mills Subject: Re: ground control hand signals? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:39 thanks to the many replies, most of which referred to the Airmans Information Manual, and a special thanks to one who took the time to actually type in some of the basic plane movement commands which are common to most major airlines. it was exactly what i needed since i'm not a controller, just playing one on TV... appreciatively, mdmills -- m.d.mills interviewer: what kind of guitars do you play? dept.of.computer.science stevie ray vaughan: they're wood. carnegie.mellon.university pittsburgh.pa.15213 From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: ground control hand signals? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:40 In addition to John Clear's excellent list, Unplug the start cart - hold left hand up vertically, with right (or GPU) hand horizonal (like a time-out T, only sideways). Pull right hand away from left hand, "unplugging" it. Control surface checks - Imitate the motion of the surface with the appropriate hand. A number of the actions are initiated by the pilot, either to request something from the ground crew or to announce an event. The ground crew echoes the command to confirm understanding and then either performs the requested action or waits for the event. The pilot, for example, requests pulling chocks and unplugging the start cart, since those are performed by the ground crew. The pilot announces engine start, with the crew confirming, since the pilots starts them. When the ground crew confirms engine start, this tells the pilot that it's safe to continue--no one's standing in the wrong place, for example. I should mention that usually the ground crew is up on intercom, with a headset with a very long cord plugged into a receptacle in the nose gear wheel well or with a low-power transmitter, when the plane is in the chocks. -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: Question about European JAA & JARs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Organization: University of Manchester Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:40 Can anyone enlighten me about the structure of the European JAA and the way that JARs are elaborated (is it a top down procedure or do national CAA authorities have to propose new regulations before the JAA will consider them)? Also, how does JAA liaise with the FAA? Thanks, Alain Deckers Policy Research in Engineering, Science and Technology University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Harvie/CAM/Lotus Subject: AA changes rules after BDL incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:41 By Matthew Brelis Boston Globe Staff Tuesday, December 5, 1995 American Airlines quietly implemented new safety rules in the wake of last month's near-tragedy at Bradley International Airport outside Hartford, instructing its pilots to fly 100 feet higher than the required minimum elevation for non-precision landings at all airports. The directive to all pilots and first officers also adds a half-mile visibility to minimum requirements for all approaches that do not use the full complement of airport and aircraft instruments. Under the new rule, pilots of the MD-83 used in last month's flight would not have had enough visibility to land at Bradley and would have had to fly to another airport or circle until the weather improved. Flight 1572 from Chicago's O'Hare Airport was on a non-instrument approach during a storm Nov. 12 when it struck a ridge about 2 miles from Bradley and cut a 90-yard swath through oak trees. One engine caught fire and failed, and the other lost power. The plane, carrying 72 passengers and a crew of five, landed on an antenna 1,000 feet short of the runway, bounced twice, and rolled to a stop. During the emergency evacuation, one person was injured. The National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the accident, has found that the pilots were flying 100 feet lower than they should have been. The board also found that air-traffic controllers failed to follow federal regulations by not giving the crew an updated barometric-pressure reading that is used to set the plane's altimeter, which measures altitude. The plane should have been flying at 1,080 feet, but instead approached at less than 900 feet and sheared off the tops of oak trees along Metacomet Ridge in East Granby, Conn. ``This is just indicative that they recognize there was a people problem,'' said a highly placed federal aviation source. ``They are just saying until we get our [act] together, we are raising the bar a little bit.'' American Airlines spokesman John Hotard said yesterday that the directive was issued in the week after the crash. He said the move is ``just a precaution the company took not knowing exactly what went wrong. Flight operations said, `Let's add 100 feet and a half-mile.''' Donna Buxton was a passenger on Flight 1572, flying for the first time. ``I don't want this to happen to anyone else. We could have crashed and died,'' she said. ``If this helps correct things, it is a wonderful start, but they should have thought about it before.'' As the plane struggled to stay aloft, Buxton's husband, Wayne, was apologizing to his wife for talking her into going to Nashville with him. Now, he is angry. ``It's not like Bradley just opened and is a new airport,'' he said. ``It infuriates me that they are doing this now. I mean, how many planes came in there before that were unsafe?'' A commercial airline pilot insisting on anonymity called the directive ``highly unusual,'' but said it posed no increased risk of collisions. The Federal Aviation Administration sets the minimums and was not informed of the directive. Hotard said the directive will affect ``only a handful of airports'' where runways do not have advanced instrument landing system approaches. Most runways at Logan have instrument landing systems, and Bradley's main runway is ILS equipped. This story ran on page 25 of the Boston Globe on 12/05/95. From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:42 In article , "Joseph D. Farrell" writes: > >>>although the conditions may have seemed extreme to you, I can only assume > you are not a commercial airline pilot. These conditions, although less > than desirable, were well within the day in and day out parameters of the > aircraft, pilots, and runway. This is the weather we make our living in. > Although the wind was strong, it was relatively down the runway. With a > 20- 45 kt headwind componant, the groundspeed was not a factor for a 6900 > ft, runway. The crosswind componant was also quite small. The problem > seems to be an incorrect altimeter setting/ indication problem as the > pilots were 300 ft. lower than they thought.<<< > > So, the fact remains that the ceiling was 800 feet and the Jepps R15 > approach into BDL requires a 1080 foot ceiling for a class D/E a/c, which > the last time I checked an MD-80 was. My point was the approach was not > safe given the existing wx, something tells me that the pilots wanted into > the airport for operational reasons, after all it was 1 am. Runway length > had nothing to do with my post, given the 25 kt headwind (more or less) > it was certainly no probelm There really is no question regarding the safety of the approach as published, given the ceiling. The approach can be legally flown and is safe even if the reported ceiling is too low (the reported runway visibility is another matter and can limit an approach clearance being issued). The height you note is simply the MDA, which the pilot cannot descend below unless the runway environment is in sight and the approach can be completed successfully. If the pilot reaches the missed-approach point without seeing the runway environment, then a missed approach has to be executed. The problem appears to be that the aircraft, as many others have said, was not flying the published approach profile, period, which would constitute a violation of the FARs and compromise flight safety. Why this was the case remains to be seen. I will agree that the approach would have had a poor chance of completion given the reported ceiling. However, I have landed many times when the reported ceiling was lower than actual, and have had to miss approaches when the reported ceiling was much higher than it really was. I don't think an attempt at one approach would have been unwise or unsafe. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: alexandc10@aol.com (Alexandc10) Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: alexandc10@aol.com (Alexandc10) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:42 Joseph, Again, you attempt to make the point that the pilot's error was in accepting the approach. The reported cieling has nothing to do with the legality of accepting the approach. Visibility (Which was 6 miles) is the controlling factor. The aircraft did not hit the ridge because of the weather... the aircraft hit the ridge because it was too low. Accepting that approach with the reported weather was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, as has been indicated by the many airline pilots (including me) who have responded to your comments. Obviously, something went very wrong during this approach, and the pilots may have indeed had something to do with it; however, there are few if any of their colleagues who find anything wrong with their decision making process regarding the approach. Give the NTSB a chance to work through the details... From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: swd_epk@afdsb.cca.rockwell.com () Subject: Re: 757 Autoland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: swd_epk@afdsb.cca.rockwell.com () Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:43 All weather landing capabilities are categorized by Decision Height, the altitude at which the crew must see the runway and take over, and, for those with 0 Decision Height, Runway Visual Range (RVR). The Categories are as follows: Category Decision Height RVR I 200 FT II 100 FT IIIA 50 FT IIIB 0 FT VARIES 100 M - 300 M (REQUIRES FULL AUTHORITY RUDDER) IIIC 0 0 (REQUIRES TAXI GUIDANCE; NON EXISTENT?) The ground facilities must also be certified for Category III approaches. The Intrument Landing System (Glideslope and Localizer) beams must meet certain criteria also for quality, freedom from multipath etc. They are also redundant and must meet a requirement that a standby will come on line within 3 seconds if the transmitting unit fails. For Category III the systems on the airplane must be shown to have less than 1xe-9 probability of producing erroneous output. They must also be available with the same probability over a 6 minute exposure time which represents the critical phase of autoland near the ground, given initial operational status. The system must indicate its status in terms of redundancy and the crew must not commit to a Cat III autoland if the status isn't sufficient. The systems also tolerate ground station switchovers described above by maintaining flight path inertially for a short time sufficient for the ground station to switch. The airborne systems are usually triplex or quad in a dual/dual configuration (ie fail in pairs). From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: turbulence1 Subject: Re: 757 Autoland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: C.R.I.U.P., Universite de Poitiers (FRANCE) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:44 Dear Hans. What i'can tell you about autoland, is that in some circumstances, it is safer to let the autopilot land the aircraft! As you probably know there is 3 different category in instrument approach. They are corresponding to different weather conditions. Cat II and Cat III approach are executed when vertical and horizontal visibility are very low (decision height in Cat II is 100 ft ). Because of this poor weather conditions it is safer to let the autopilot follow the ILS indications. In fact such precision approach can be done only under certain conditions : Autopilot must be certified for autoland, crew must be cerfied for such operations ( at least one pilot/cockpit in some airlines), ILS must be precise enough and runway must have special approach lighting ramp. When in operations you never land in zero/zero that means you dont even know if you are on the ruway after landing! Country and airlines are giving there own "minima", in France (my country!) the lowest minima are, in Cat III approach, about 50 meters of horizontal visibility and 0 meters of vertical visibility. Considering you own experience, pilot got to keep experience in autolanding even if the weather is beautiful! I hope this answer to some of your questions. From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: ee2carb@ee.edinburgh.ac.uk (C.A.R.Beveridge \(Colin\)) Subject: Re: Airbus 3XX on the telly References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Electrical Engineering Department, University of Edinburgh Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:44 In article , Michael Carley writes: > For those of you who can get BBC2, there'll be a programme > about the 3XX on Tuesday night (the 5th) at 8.00pm in the > series `The Limit'. > Yes, I watched that, a very amusing look at the possiblities of building a large jumbo - that Frenchman with the big moustache in charge of the project was much more charismatic than the Boeing 777 project leader. I thought it was interesting that a British company had already built such a massive jumbo 30 years ago, but nobody would buy it. It looked like a 747, except the hump went all the way along the fuselage. The problem was that the designers filled the space with cabins and lounges, and it took 12 hours to make an Atlantic crossing, so it was clearly uneconomical. Had they packed it full of seats, may have been popular with airlines. Something else the programme pointed out that I hadn't thought of - the space taken up by landing gear is a problem with big jumbos, particularly the inward-folding outermost rear wheels which necessitate a bulge in the hull to fit them in. Also the noise when landing, since this is generated by the air displacement rather than the engines. -- Colin A R Beveridge Microelectronic Engineering The University of Edinburgh United Kingdom http://www.ed.ac.uk From kls Sun Dec 10 02:51:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Marcelo F.Cosi" Subject: Difference between engines 1 & 4 of the boeing 707 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuBrasil Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Dec 95 02:51:45 Does somebody know why the engines-arm were different in most of the 707's????? From kls Sun Dec 17 02:11:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gershzohn@mdta.mdc.com (Gary Gershzohn) Subject: Re: 757 Autoland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MDC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 02:11:48 Autoland systems generally include the following capabilities: ability to track the localizer and glide slope; align with the runway centerline close to the runway; flare (pitch up and power reduction); and lower the nose after touchdown. There is considerable redundancy with typically two or three systems talking to each other along the approach. The MD-11 uses two autoland systems for approach. Regarding landing minimums, these systems are used for Category 3 approaches. There are three types at Cat 3 approaches depending on the visibility certified for landing operation: Cat 3a 1200ft Cat 3b 700 ft Cat 3c 0 ft. Distances are slightily different in Europe with metric numbers. There is no ceiling requirement. The requirements for making an approach to any of these minimums depend on on board equipment, airport facilities, crew training, and crew certification. In other words, each one of these has regulatory requirements that must be met at the time the approach is made. If one is not met, the an approach to higher minimums would have to be used. In article , hyao@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Hans Yao) wrote: > I was recently aboard an USAir 757 tht executed an autoland at Charlotte, > nice smooth approach and touchdown was smooth, though solid. > > I queried the flight crew after the flight (just wanted to see the flight > deck, didnt know Id stumble onto such an interesting topic.) He said > that that landing was a routine test of the system, certified for > approaches to 600 feet visibility. Is there anyone out there that would > care to post or mail me more information about the various autoland > systems, how they work, what the specifications are, if they are legal > for zero-zero? I thought it was pretty interesting, the plane being able > to do that all on its own. > > Anyone with any thoughts, remarks, or previously posted information on > the topic? > > Hans From kls Sun Dec 17 02:11:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Le-Vien Subject: Re: 757 Autoland References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: slevien@eggw.demon.co.uk Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 02:11:48 In message wrote: [snip] > Category Decision Height RVR > > I 200 FT > II 100 FT > IIIA 50 FT > IIIB 0 FT VARIES 100 M - 300 M (REQUIRES FULL > AUTHORITY RUDDER) > IIIC 0 0 (REQUIRES TAXI GUIDANCE; NON EXISTENT?) Not quite. A Cat IIIb approach can be flown with a zero cloudbase but there is always a decision height. It is designated as 'below 50ft' and is set by the operating company, approved by the relevant Flight Operations Department. Typical IRVR minumum is 75 metres. > [snip] They are also redundant > and must meet a requirement that a standby will come on line within 3 seconds > if the transmitting unit fails. No, there must not be more than a *one* second break. During Low Vis Procedures we run the ILS and airfield lighting on diesel generators and have the mains available as an instantaneous back up. In fact, strictly speaking, whether on generators or mains, the ILS is running off baterries which are being constantly charged by whatever supply is in use. -- ___________________________________________________________________ ____ \ / Steve Le-Vien AFTN: EGGWZPZX || Air Traffic Services Manager tel: +44 1582 395230 || London Luton Airport, UK fax: +44 1582 395381 || slevien@eggw.demon.co.uk My views, not LLA Ltd From kls Sun Dec 17 02:11:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: matalqa.1@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (TRM) Subject: different type of wing lets Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 02:11:49 I wonder if anyone can enlighten me a little more about wing lets. What is the difference between the wing lets that are fitted on the 747-400, G-4, some modified 727, and the A-340, which are only at the top of the wings, like this ____/ , in contrast with those on the A-320 and A-310 which seem to have a wing let on both sides, like this ----I, the upper and the lower surface. I have seen several Delta 727 with wing lets fly in and out of my home town airport, but never got a real close look at one, until last week where I saw a cooperate 727 that is based at the company I work for with wing lets. Looks real sharp, kind of puts the 727 into the current era. Thanks in advance. TRM From kls Sun Dec 17 02:11:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Russell S Subject: question about 747 gear bogies Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MAGNADATA Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 02:11:49 In landing configuration, prior to touchdown, the starboard outer bogey of Boeing 747's presents a more accute angle to the runway that the others. Can anybody tell me why is this so. I've been having sleepless nights wondering. Please Help. Russell Saunderson From kls Sun Dec 17 02:11:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Difference between engines 1 & 4 of the boeing 707 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 Dec 95 02:11:49 In article "Marcelo F.Cosi" writes: >Does somebody know why the engines-arm were different in most of the >707's????? Engines 3-4 had turbocompressors for use by the pneumatics (and thus pressurization) system. This was supplemented by normal bleed air from the engines themselves. The designers felt they didn't need four of them (but engine 1 could still provide bleed air). Modern engines have much higher airflow, and can "bleed" all necessary air from within the engine for the same purpose. The above, of course, depends on which engines the airplane has. CFM-56 retrofits, for instance, have no need for the turbocompressor so they're not there. -- 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 Dec 17 02:11:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Difference between engines 1 & 4 of the boeing 707 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 02:11:49 On 10 Dec 1995, Marcelo F.Cosi wrote: > Does somebody know why the engines-arm were different in most of the > 707's????? The 707s carried an accessory turbocompressor, and depending on what type of 707 (and what customer) you're talking about, the arrangement of them on the pylons varied. Most 707-320B/C series aircraft (except for American Airlines) had T/Cs on all but number one engine. The number one pylon was a straight line all they way from the leading edge down to the cowling. The others have a "hump" on them with a small intake at the leading edge. This is the intake for the turbocompressor. On USAF EC and some RC-135s, there were T/Cs on numbers 1, 3 and 4 leaving #2 without one. It looks decidedly strange, but that's the way they did it. On most 707-120B and 720B aircraft, there were T/Cs only on the two inboards, leaving both outboards with "humpless" pylons. Jennings Heilig (my other car is a 707) From kls Sun Dec 17 02:11:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Difference between engines 1 & 4 of the boeing 707 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 02:11:50 "Marcelo F.Cosi" wrote: >Does somebody know why the engines-arm were different in most of the >707's????? I don't know the answer, but I do have an observation to contribute... Are you referring to the fact that (with JT-3D engines, anyway) many 707's had a small oval or round air inlet on the leading edge of the pylon for 3 engines but not on the fourth? I've also seen photos of 707's with the air inlet on all four engines, and a few with inlets on only the inboard engine pylons and not either outboard pylon. It seems that several combinations are available. I assume that it is associated with some engine accessory that isn't mandatory on all engines, but I don't know which accessory it might be. Also- I did a lot of flying the past couple of weeks (unfortunately mostly on MD-80s.. BLAHH!) but I did get my first close look at an A-340 passing through DFW. That is one graceful ship!! Despite the wider body and larger overall size, it reminds me very much of a 707 both on the ground and in the air. The proportions work together in a very pleasing way. -- 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 Sun Dec 17 02:11:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: htsui@direct.ca (Hotel Tango) Subject: Boeing System Enables 747s To Navigate By Satellite Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: htsui@direct.ca (Hotel Tango) Organization: Private Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 02:11:50 HONG KONG, Nov. 29, 1995 -- The Boeing 747-400 is aviation's first jetliner to be equipped and certified with a new air traffic management system that can potentially save the airlines millions of dollars by using satellite navigation and communication, said David Allen, Boeing CNS/ATM project manager. Allen made the comments today in a presentation at the ATC Asia Pacific '95 Conference. An upgrade to the flight management system, Future Air Navigation System 1 (FANS 1), allows the 747-400 to make primary use of Global Satellite Positioning System (GPS) equipment to determine accurate positions anywhere in the world. A two-way data link system allows the aircraft to communicate with air traffic control and airline flight planning operations. "The FANS 1 upgrade represents the first step in improving the industry's Air Space Management System which integrates the core communication, navigation and surveillance performance requirements," said Allen. "Today's Air Space Management System uses lateral and longitudinal separation of approximately 80 nautical miles over the ocean," Allen said. "Because FANS 1 provides accurate automatic position reports, it initially will reduce both longitudinal and lateral separation to 50 nautical miles. Further refinement is expected to reduce separation to 30 nautical miles by the end of 1996." This significant reduction in separation permits aircraft to fly more direct and fuel-efficient routes, especially over oceans and undeveloped countries where surveillance radar is not available. In-flight course adjustments and prompt clearances, via the two-way data link, enable pilots to seek the most cost-effective routes. The FANS 1 system includes GPS as the primary navigation sensor, Automatic Dependent Surveillance and air traffic control and airline company data link. "The development of FANS 1 for the 747-400 was a cooperative effort by airlines, ATC service providers, Honeywell and Boeing," said Allen. "Air New Zealand, Cathay Pacific, Qantas and United Airlines participated in most aspects of the development effort. They selected the functions to be implemented and helped design much of the flight deck interface." "The Boeing Company," said Allen, "is in the process of implementing FANS 1 on the 777, 757, 767 and 737 airplanes." Cheers, Herbert ------------------------------------------- - Herbert TSUI, Richmond, BC, Canada - - htsui@direct.ca - ------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Dec 17 14:06:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Big Twin Competition (was Re: Boeing/MDC merger) References: <49iu4b$i5v@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 14:06:22 In article <49iu4b$i5v@kragar.kei.com>, (M.Denker) (101326.2470@compuserve.com) wrote: > I don't belive that Boeing and MDC go together. Whether the merger will take place or not is speculative at this time. > Anyway, Airbus Industrie is ready to compete against both of them. IMHO, even if the merger takes place it will not affect significantly the competition between Boeing and Airbus. > Airbus offers the most advanced technology Airbus tends to use newer technologies sooner than its competitors. The reason is simple: being a late-comer in the field, it has to use newer technologies to set itself apart from the competition. Nevertheless, it involves more risk, too. Furthermore, newer does not necessarily means it's better. > and Boeing's Triple-Seven will suffer from the repositioning of > the A 330 in the late nineties. Do you really know what you are talking about?! Look at it carefully and you'll know that in the A330/B777 competition Boeing is not suffering, it's Airbus which is suffering. According to Flight International, in 1990 (when the industry was in a much rosier time), Airbus predicted that there would be 1408 deliveries of big twins (i.e., the A330 and the B777) between 1990 and 2005. Airbus boldly forecasted that only 550 of the 1408 would be the B777, the rest would be the A330. With less than 120 A330s on order, I seriously doubt Airbus can come close to its predicted 858 A330 deliveries by 2005. OTOH, Boeing with 230 B777 orders to date will likely exceed Airbus' "expectation". Furthermore, since the launch of the B777, Airbus has received less A330 orders than cancellations. Also ask yourself why Airbus shelved the stretched A330-400 program but instead launch the shortened A330-200? The answer is simple: Airbus is avoiding direct competition with the B777. (However, Boeing is not avoiding the competition. In addition to the ultra-long-range B777-100X that is on the verge to be launched, Boeing is also mulling to launch a low gross weight -100X which will directly compete with the A330-200.) Airbus will have a hard time selling the A330-200 in Asia because it's too small. Despite Airbus' claim of 9% lower direct operating cost than the B767-300ER, Airbus will also have a hard time selling the new plane in the US, because most US carriers already have plently of B767-300ERs in their fleet. Furthermore, all the B767-300ERs in service today are too young to be replaced. I don't expect the A330-200 to do well outside of Europe and the Middle East. (Well, unless Airbus can convince AA to go with the A330/340 instead of the B777.) IMHO, Airbus has seriously mis-planned its A330/340 program, especially the A330. The A330-300 is small for Asia and large for the US. (Currently, US has the largest market for air travel, and in the next ten to fifteen years, Asia will be the largest. Thus, if an aircraft does not cater the needs of one these two markets, then there will not be much future for the aircraft.) The A330 base design was optimized for the - -300 size. The proposed stretched A330-400 could not compete with the B777-300 because the A330-400 would have significantly shorter range. Now, the new A330-200 will effectively be competing with its sibling, the A340-200. The range difference between the two aircraft is less than 1,000 nm. The A340 is actually doing better than Airbus expected. In the 1990 forecast that I mentioned earlier, Airbus expected to sell 342 A340s between 1990 and 2005. However, for the A340, Airbus picked an engine (the CFM56-5C) that had little room to grow. If Airbus wants to launch the stretched A340-400, it will need a brand new engine. Can you imagine an airline operating a family of A330/340 and has to maintain at least three different engine types? At this time, it seems that only CFM International is really committed to develop an engine for the proposed A340-400X. Pratt & Whitney is offering an existing engine, the PW2000, but I don't think that's a serious offer. If Airbus does put the PW2000 on the new derivative, then one must ask why Airbus did not put the PW2000 on the original A340 in the first place. > Moreover, Airbus' short-haul family is complete with the A 319. The A319/320/321 is a versatile family of aircraft. Nevertheless, the A319 and the A321 both have yet to establish a respectable customer base. > Boeing still offers its slow 737 (in ATC often > calles "AIRWAY BLOCKERS"). I believe the 737-600/700/800 are faster than the -300/400/500. For short-haul flights, the speed difference does not translate into a lot of difference in flight time. Hence, I don't think it's a significant marketing disadvantage for Boeing or advantage for Airbus. After all, since the launch of the third-generation B737, Boeing has received more B737 orders than Airbus has received orders for the A320 series of aircraft. BTW, in an unsubstantiated report, it was quoted that Boeing claimed the B777 could save as much as an hour of flight time than the A340 on a long-haul flight. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Sun Dec 17 14:06:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: Airbus 3XX on the telly References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 14:06:23 C.A.R.Beveridge \(Colin\) wrote: >I thought it was interesting that a British company had already built >such a massive jumbo 30 years ago, but nobody would buy it. It looked >like a 747, except the hump went all the way along the fuselage. The >problem was that the designers filled the space with cabins and lounges, >and it took 12 hours to make an Atlantic crossing, so it was clearly >uneconomical. Had they packed it full of seats, may have been popular >with airlines. Since the oldest 747s are 25+ years old, "30 years ago" would be 1965? I believe you are talking about the Bristol Brabizon from 1946 or so. I recall it had 8 Rolls-Roycle Merlins driving co-axial propellors It seems that its much smaller brother, the Bristol Brittania was a bit more succesful... though both Brittania, Constellation, Stratocruiser and DC-7 didnt fare too well in competetion with the 707 and DC-8. tim From kls Sun Dec 17 14:06:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: riffraff@eskimo.com (David R. Hendrickson) Subject: Re: Paine Field/TRAMCO References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Seattle - It's not Hell, but you can see it from here! Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 14:06:23 In article , rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu wrote: >I just read that America West is dumping its >maintenance in favor of outsourcing it to TRAMCO. i'm on the AWA 737 line here at the "big T", five to eight-day C checks with flap track swap and elevator torque tube R&R. what fun. at least most of them are 300's (no damn stab bushing mod). a few AWA paperwork problems here and there. we're working N308AW right now and it's been pushed back 3 days due to AD's and such showing up late in the check. the thing is, we're just coming over from Southwest 20+ day C and D checks, so i think we're gonna catch it in the shorts on the first couple of planes. AND we have a couple of ex-AWA mechs trickling in... dave _|_ David R. Hendrickson -----o-( )-o----- If it's not Boeing, riffraff@eskimo.com " ' " I'm not going. From kls Sun Dec 17 14:06:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jim watson Subject: aircraft production economics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Bristol, England Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 14:06:23 I sam trying to find data relating to hoe design continuity in sucessive generations and models of large commercial jet aircraft relates to thre manufacturing economics. eg how much of the wing design is carried over and what changes are made, can anyone help? Cheers jim From kls Sun Dec 17 14:06:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: richard@adacel.com.au (Richard Keeling) Subject: Boeing 707 Engine Pylons References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Adacel Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 Dec 95 14:06:23 The engine pylons on the Boeing 707 housed the cabin air conditioning units. Passenger versions of the B707 had three engine driven air-cycle air-conditioning units in engines 2,3 and 4, the 320C freighter had only two, engines 3 and 4. These units achieved a cabin differentional of 8.6 lbs/sq in. The smaller B720 only required two units as per the freighter versions. The B720 was almost externally identical to the heavier B707s but had a different structure and corresponding lighter operating weights. cheers Richard Keeling. From news Sun Nov 26 06:14:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!ccnet.com!boo!netcom.com!rdd From: gkevork@ix.netcom.com (GARABED K. KEVORKIAN ) Subject: A310 AND L1011 AIRLINE TRAINING Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom13.netcom.com Organization: Netcom Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 17:22:32 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu I am new to this group. I would like to meet some instructors worldwide who have been involved in flight crew and line mechanics training, on L1011 and A310 airplanes. I have been to Toulouse for A310 flight crew instructor training and aircraft systems training. If there are any instructors from Aeroformation/Toulouse,France , I would like to establish base. Hope to hear from some of you. Thanks. Gary/ California From news Tue Dec 5 14:24:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: Michael Carley Subject: Airbus 3XX on the telly Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 17:06:59 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu For those of you who can get BBC2, there'll be a programme about the 3XX on Tuesday night (the 5th) at 8.00pm in the series `The Limit'. -- "You got your highbrow funk, you got your lowbrow funk, you even got a little bit of your pee-wee, pow-wow funk" (Dr. John) Michael Carley, Mech. Eng., TCD, IRELAND. m.carley@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie Home page From news Sun Dec 10 15:26:37 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: (new and improved) B777 order list Date: 10 Dec 1995 13:52:17 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4afkqh$mqd@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> References: In article , Andrew Chuang wrote: >I believe Delta was also involved in the initial B777 design and >development, so was American. I also read it in the newswire that in >the next six months, Boeing is expected to reach the 300 milestone for >the B777 (currently there are 230 B777s on order). The new customers >mentioned include Air China, Malaysian, Virgin, Air-India, Alitalia, >ILFC, Northwest, and Delta. The most surprising ones (at least to me) >are Alitalia and Northwest. Alitalia is surprising because that airline is extremely unstable at the moment. It's not clear that there's any real planning going on there. The 777-100 might make sense for Northwest. It would be a plane with long-legs and low costs that could be used to develop routes to Asia. They might also choose the -200B to serve Europe (they are one of the few airlines without twins on the Atlantic routes). On the other hand, Northwest's labor costs are going to snap back in another year or two. ILFC looks like a no-brainer. The 777 is clearly going to be one of the standard aircraft of the next few decades, so it behooves the big leasing companies to have a suitable number in their portfolios. The Malaysian order could be interesting. The Malaysian govt wants to establish a aerospace industry, and there has been talk of Airbus giving them some components to manufacture. I don't know how much room Airbus has to manuever in this way, nor Boeing either, really. So much of these airplanes are already farmed out, Malaysian's sort of the last person to arrive at the dance. RNA From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Big Twin Competition (was Re: Boeing/MDC merger) References: <49iu4b$i5v@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:03 In most of the discussion about the 777 against Airbus, the 777 is pitted against the 330 with arguments that the 330 isn't doing well. I was under the impression that the 777 was in competition against the DC-10 and the A-340, so it is really fair to compare sales of the 330 against those of the 777 ? Since the next variant of the 777 seems to be the long range one, it would seem that Boeing is really eying the 340 market, right ? Should we compare airliners by their number of engines alone, or shouldn't range/capacity be a more important factor ? From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Big Twin Competition (was Re: Boeing/MDC merger) References: <49iu4b$i5v@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:03 >In most of the discussion about the 777 against Airbus, the 777 is pitted >against the 330 with arguments that the 330 isn't doing well. >I was under the impression that the 777 was in competition against the DC-10 >and the A-340, so it is really fair to compare sales of the 330 against those >of the 777 ? It would be the MD-11 and not the DC-10. Otherwise, you're right, and in general it's common to see the 777 pitted against the A330/A340 and MD-11. The MD-11 may increasingly be left out of discussions since it seems to have nearly disappeared from the competition, except for the freighter market where it is doing quite well. >Since the next variant of the 777 seems to be the long range one, it >would seem that Boeing is really eying the 340 market, right ? I assume you mean the next 777 variant to launch, and not the upcoming (but already launched) 777-300. The 777-100X proposal appears to be even longer range than the existing A340 -- it's clear competitor will be the A340-8000. >Should we compare airliners by their number of engines alone, or shouldn't >range/capacity be a more important factor ? Yes, though I don't think people have been ignoring the other issues. The *current* 777-200 (not the B market version) does compare directly with the A330 on most counts, including range. Some of the uses which have been discussed here do not require the longer range, and thus the competition really is between the 777 and A330. Neither the MD-11 nor the A340 would be reasonable candidates for L-1011 replacement at TWA or Delta, for example, other than Delta's small fleet of L-1011-500s. That's not to say that engine count isn't important -- part of the reason behind my comment regarding TWA and Delta is that economics make it very unlikely that any airline would buy an aircraft with more than two engines for U.S. domestic routes anymore. In competing with the A340-8000, the 777-100X will face the "twin" issue. An airline can choose the 777-200/-100X pair or the A330/A340-8000 pair and have many similar commonality benefits. The Airbus pairing requires that an airline maintain two different engines, unlike the 777, but doesn't require ETOPS for long overwater flights. ETOPS across the Atlantic is not a hard sell, but it's not clear that the same can be said about the vast expanses of the North Pacific, so engine count vs. commonality will undoubtedly be a key question in the Airbus vs. Boeing struggle. -- 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 Dec 18 15:26:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Boeing System Enables 747s To Navigate By Satellite References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:04 At long last (or is that lat/long last?), the FAA has joined the 20th Century and realized that GPS and not MLS is the wave of the future? Hooray for them... Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:04 During a recent use of Heathrow Airport, I noticed a Virgin Atlantic 747-400. It had some markings in 2 or 3 places, somewhat well above the windows. These markings *seemed* to indicate where escape would be possible (I *assume* emergency crews would have to somehow punch through the skin to get to passengers). Does anyone have any more information on the matter ? As well, what sort of interior arrangements have been done ? The positioning of these areas leeds me to beleive that the rescuers would also have to punch through the overhead luggage racks after they punched through the skin of plane. Is Virgin the only airline to have such markings. Is this a feature unique to Virvin's 747-400s or are all 747-400s like that with other airlines not having markings ? Finally: WHY are these there ? Under what sort of conditions would rescuers have to cut through the fuselage in such an emergency that these markings would save them those valuable seconds ? From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bi737@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel G. Sharpes) Subject: Engine-Out Compensation System Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:05 I'm looking for info on engine-out compensation systems. What aircraft have them? How does the system work? Is there a nuisance failure problem with the system? Any personal experiences with the system or comments on how it could be improved? I'm aware of two systems, one on the KC-135R and the other on the Shorts 330 (USAF C-23A). I've been able to speak to one pilot of each type but want a broader base of experience. Reply to this board or to my work address: sharpes@c17mis.wpafb.af.mil -- Dan Sharpes From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:05 >> The problem >> seems to be an incorrect altimeter setting/ indication problem as the >> pilots were 300 ft. lower than they thought.<<< Altimeter settings are only updated once and hour in the Artcc's. During periods of rapid change the setting given to a pilot by a center controller may be off be several points. John Dill ATCS Cleveland ARTCC Rush is right! From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jsteele@AZStarNet.com (Jerry Steele) Subject: Re: AA changes rules after BDL incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Arizona Daily Star - AZSTARNET Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:05 In article John Harvie/CAM/Lotus writes: >American Airlines quietly implemented new safety rules in the wake of last >month's near-tragedy at Bradley International Airport outside Hartford, >instructing its pilots to fly 100 feet higher than the required minimum >elevation for non-precision landings at all airports. Question from non-pilot (frequent passenger) to all you pilots: What happened to the ground proximity warning system? From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: AA changes rules after BDL incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:06 In article John Harvie/CAM/Lotus, John_Harvie/CAM/Lotus.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com writes: >The plane should have been flying at 1,080 feet, but instead approached >at less than 900 feet and sheared off the tops of oak trees along Metacomet >Ridge in East Granby, Conn. Does this mean that an aircraft flying a proper approach would have cleared the ridge by only 180 feet? Isn't this too close for comfort? From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "G. E. Lambert" Subject: Re: AA changes rules after BDL incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:07 I picked up this thread way after the fact. If the following is redundant, my apologies. It is my understanding that AA flies all approaches, visual and instrument, using QFE altimeter settings. If you know QNH, you can compute QFE by subtracting elevation/1000 from it. The advantage of QFE is that your altimeter always reads approximately zero at touchdown. (Approximately, because QFE is usually based on airport reference point elevation rather than touchdown zone elevation.) The disadvantage is that someone has to do a calculation. If that someone is the pilots, it is an addtional burden during a stressful phase of flight. If it is someone else, the pilots are critically dependent on someone else's work, although they can check it. I understand that AA approaches are flown with both pilot's altimeters set to QFE and the standby altimeter set to QNH. They approach is then flown with respect to the HAA numbers shown in parentheses on the Jeppesen charts. Could the crew have been given an incorrect QFE and not picked up the error on their standby? Could their standby have been sufficiently in error that the error was not caught? Could the QNH been flat out wrong with the resultant QFE in error? Where was the GPWS in this event? What did the radio altimeter(s) show? Did the crew overshoot the MDA? It will be interesting to read the NTSB report. To add to the chorus, visibility is the required minimum, almost without exception, in the United States. Ceiling reports are notoriously unreliable, in my experience. G. E. Lambert Ann Arbor From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: vee12@airmail.net (Butch Vaillancourt) Subject: Re: different type of wing lets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:07 >I have seen several Delta 727 with wing lets fly in and out of my >home town airport, but never got a real close look at one, until last week >where I saw a cooperate 727 that is based at the company I work for with >wing lets. Looks real sharp, kind of puts the 727 into the current era. Delta has taken the winglets off of our 2 727's that were involved in a test. Boeing told us that they would not guarantee the wing with such a modification. Butch V. ( line mtc ) From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: brianm4463@aol.com (BrianM4463) Subject: Re: Difference between engines 1 & 4 of the boeing 707 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: brianm4463@aol.com (BrianM4463) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:07 >>an A-340 passing through DFW. That is one >>graceful ship!! I second that. Truly a pretty airplane, especially when you see it sitting next to a worn-out-in-need-of-paint DC-10. I understand the new -8000 variant will have incredible range (Tokyo-New York, Australia-Europe, etc.). Nice one, Airbus. From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: luis@netcom.com (Luis Babicek) Subject: Re: New A330/340 models References: <480il4$j9t@sphinx.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:08 spagiola (spagiolaworldbank.org@minerva.worldbank.org) wrote: : I don't have exact range figures handy, but if the A310-300 can't match : the 767-300ER, I'd imagine you could get it to. But the A310 is a smaller : aircraft. Just as there have been few sales of the 767-200 (which is a : closer match to the A310), there have been few of the 767. The A300-600, : on the other hand, is still based on the original A300 wing (the A310 has : a different wing), so that design is reaching its limits. So shrinking : the A330 makes sense. Just for the record, Aerolineas Argentinas operates A310-324 (P&W4000) from Buenos Aires (EZE) to New York (JFK). This flight can take anywhere from 10 to 11 hs, depending on weather, ATC, etc. To achieve this, the aircraft had to be fitted by Airbus with supplementary fuel tanks, in detriment of the cargo carrying capacity. United operates B767-300's on this route and so does American. Luis From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stone_l@eisner.decus.org (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:09 In article , Don Stokes writes: > I don't have much of a problem with the Boeing numbering. As I understand > it, a 757-222 is: > > Model: 757 Specifies engine size, number of engines, > gross airframe configuration > Series: 200 Specifies major variations from basic model in > range, length, finer airframe configuration > 22 Specifies airline-specific configuration, engines > (type within range specified for model/series) > cabin configuration etc (is there a name for this > part of the number?). But that isn't true. To expand on Karl's excellent example of the UA 747-400s, we have 24 of them of which 22 are 747-422s and 2 are 747-451s. Of the 22 747-422s, 6 have one cabin configuration (36/123/142) while the 22 are 18/80/320, the same as the 2 747-451s. So the airline part of the model is telling us nothing about the cabin configuration. I believe (but am not all sure) that each configuration requires an STC (supplemental type certificate) which does, in a very techinical sense, make the planes different models but the Boeing model number is not affected by the issuance of an STC. At least for United, you can tell something about the plane's configuration from the "nose number" (which is also on the tail now). The nose number is a 4 digit number where the first digit indicates the major fleet (747, DC-10, etc.), the second is the sub-fleet (different configurations), and the last two match the last two digits of the plane's registration number. The two 747-451s and the 16 747-422s with the 18/80/320 seating all have the same first two digits (81). -- Larry Stone | United Airlines VAX and HP-UX Systems Administrator | Maintenance Operations Center stone_l@eisner.decus.org | San Francisco, CA 415-634-4725 All opinions are mine, not United's. From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:09 In article , drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: > typed as a DC-10. Douglas saves big bucks on using the derivative > certification process, just as Boeing does, and as Airbus wishes we all > couldn't. Until they do *their* stretches, that is. :-) Based on the above, am I to understand that Airbus's introduction of the stretched A320, called the A-321 required more certification paperwork than Douglas' introduction of the stretched DC-10 called the MD-11 ? Would a stretched 737 bearing the name 737-xxx require less paperwork/certification simply because the word "737" is still used in the product's name ???? If Airbus hhad named the stretched A320 A320-400, instead of A321, would this have saved Airbus some certification work ???? From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:10 >> typed as a DC-10. Douglas saves big bucks on using the derivative >> certification process, just as Boeing does, and as Airbus wishes we all >> couldn't. Until they do *their* stretches, that is. :-) >Based on the above, am I to understand that Airbus's introduction of the >stretched A320, called the A-321 required more certification paperwork than >Douglas' introduction of the stretched DC-10 called the MD-11 ? Keep in mind that the type certificates are issued by government agencies, entities which are not known as paragons of rational behavior. Now, consider Lockheed's L-1011. It was initially designated L-1011-385-1, -385 being for an early design target of 385,000 lbs MGTOW (the first one was actually 409,000 lbs MGTOW, boosted to 430,000 lbs to meet performance guarantees), and -1 for first variant. This is what is shown on the type certificate. When Lockheed was readying the next two versions, the FAA apparently refused to treat them as derivatives unless they were designated with suffixes to the original, hence the L-1011-385-1-15 and -14 were born. When the long range TriStar 500 was introduced, a different FAA rep decided it was ok to call it L-1011-385-500 yet still treat it as a derivative. >Would a stretched 737 bearing the name 737-xxx require less >paperwork/certification simply because the word "737" is still used in the >product's name ???? If Airbus hhad named the stretched A320 A320-400, instead >of A321, would this have saved Airbus some certification work ???? Apparently the answers could depend on who you ask at the FAA, and when. In reality, I'd be very surprised if the A321 cost Airbus more than in might have simply because of the name -- if that had been the case, they probably would have called it the A320-400 as you suggest, or probably -300. Another alternative might have been to use A321 as a marketing name while the TC lists something else, a la the MD-82 which says DC-9-82 on its certificate. -- 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 Dec 18 15:26:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:10 >That is probably what will be written on the Type Certificate. >The MD-80 is typed as a DC-9-80. The MD-11 is, if memory serves, also >typed as a DC-10. Douglas saves big bucks on using the derivative >certification process, just as Boeing does, and as Airbus wishes we all >couldn't. Until they do *their* stretches, that is. :-) If Mcdonell Douglas was still calles Douglas Commercial Aircraft The Aircraft would still be designated as DC-?. But since the company changed names then it wouldn't make much sense. The DC-9-80 was only renamed the MD-80 for this reason. Hope this makes it all clear. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org WWW: http://www.io.org/~bradg/ A&P, AME (Canada), PPASEL (Canada) Leading Edge Aviation Services From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:11 >If Mcdonell Douglas was still calles Douglas Commercial Aircraft The Aircraft >would still be designated as DC-?. But since the company changed names then >it wouldn't make much sense. >The DC-9-80 was only renamed the MD-80 for this reason. Conventional wisdom (which may or may not accurately reflect reality) was that the designation was changed because of the widely publicized crashes of the DC-10 and the aftermath thereof. In particular, the traveling public was clearly avoiding the DC-10 after the 1979 crash of AA 191 at Chicago and the subsequent grounding of the DC-10. Both McDonnell Douglas and the airlines felt that anything with a DC moniker might be tarred with the same brush, and I recall an article in Fortune which suggested all of the DCs were in fact being avoided to varying degrees. While this explanation may or may not be correct, it makes more sense than the merger explanation, since the merger took place in the 1960s (even before the launch of the DC-10) but the designation change did not take place until the early 1980s, not long after the AA 191 crash. -- 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 Dec 18 15:26:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rvriet@rwm.nl (Ronald van Riet) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rvriet@rwm.nl (Ronald van Riet) Organization: NLnet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:11 drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) wrote: >Felix R. Villatuya wrote: >> I guess McDonnell Douglas didn't follow Boeing's definition. The MD-80 >> didn't have a different engine configuration from the DC-9 either. >> I believe the MD-80 was in fact a DC-9-80 (or Super 80). Technically >> speaking, the MD-95 could be called the DC-9-95. >That is probably what will be written on the Type Certificate. >The MD-80 is typed as a DC-9-80. The MD-11 is, if memory serves, also >typed as a DC-10. Douglas saves big bucks on using the derivative >certification process, just as Boeing does, and as Airbus wishes we all >couldn't. Until they do *their* stretches, that is. :-) There's more to type certificates than saving a few bucks on paperwork: Old rules apply meaning you can get away with old-fashioned black boxes and stuff and lower safety criteria, thus saving lots of bucks in manufacturing and offering operators higher payloads. Another thing of course is the type certification of piloits and other crew: when using one certification type, you don't have to have your pilots recertified and they can much easier be redeployed. These are where the real bucks are.... Many happy landings Ronald From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rching@saclink1.csus.edu (Russell K Ching) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: California State University Sacramento Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:11 spagiola (spagiolaworldbank.org@minerva.worldbank.org) wrote: : Proposals to re-engine DC-9s periodically surface. Air Canada, Northwest, : and Finnair all seriously considered such schemes in recent years. On : these older airframes, though, it turns out hush-kitting was the better : deal, economically. We may yet see DC-9s being re-engined. There was also the problem of the weight of a new engine and its impact on the airframe. As I recall, at the time Air Canada and MD were investigating this option (i.e., replacing the engine), there was also no engine available with the appropriate thrust. Russ From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:12 In article drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: Felix R. Villatuya wrote: > I guess McDonnell Douglas didn't follow Boeing's definition. The MD-80 > didn't have a different engine configuration from the DC-9 either. > I believe the MD-80 was in fact a DC-9-80 (or Super 80). Technically > speaking, the MD-95 could be called the DC-9-95. That is probably what will be written on the Type Certificate. The MD-80 is typed as a DC-9-80. The MD-11 is, if memory serves, also typed as a DC-10. Douglas saves big bucks on using the derivative certification process, just as Boeing does, and as Airbus wishes we all couldn't. Until they do *their* stretches, that is. :-) ==== Sorry guys, The TCs for the MD-80 series up to the MD-83 were: DC-9-8X. However, with the MD-87/-88 the type ceritificates were issued with "MD-87" and "MD-88" on the page. The MD-90 series, in fact, consists of (will consist of?) "MD-90-30", "MD-90-50", as written on the TC. Note that all of these models (MD-80s/MD-90s) are covered as variants of the DC-9 on the same TC. Also, "MD-11" is what's written on the MD-11's TC, which is a variant of the DC-10 (and thus also on the same TC). ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Mon Dec 18 15:26:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: jpstrain@netcom.com (Jim Strain) Subject: Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs) References: <45el3n$cht@kragar.kei.com> <45jjs0$jql@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:13 In article , Stefano Pagiola wrote: > bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) wrote: > > > >DAC uses the year of launch (or projected launch) as their model > >numbers for the twin-jet series. > > Not exactly. When the DC-9-80 was launched, Douglas skipped the series > numbers between -80 and the preceding -50 as a marketing ploy: "Super 80 > for the Eighties." Yeah, that sounds right. Back in the late 70's I worked on a huge subcontract proposal to MDC (McDonnell had just taken over) for its new version of the DC9, the "Model 55." At some point it became the DC9-80. Marketeers. . . .jim strain in san diego. From kls Tue Dec 19 02:01:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Engine-Out Compensation System 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: 19 Dec 95 02:01:00 Dan Sharpes...sharpes@c17mis.wpafb.af.mil wrote -- > I'm looking for info on engine-out compensation systems. >What aircraft have them? How does the system work? >Is there a nuisance failure problem with the system? Any >personal experiences with the system or comments on >how it could be improved? > I'm aware of two systems, one on the KC-135R and the >other on the Shorts 330 (USAF C-23A). I've been able to >speak to one pilot of each type but want a broader base >of experience. The Boeing airplanes which I am familiar with (and have an autothrottle) detect an engine failure and provide thrust compensation. If the airplane has a Flight Management Computer, it will compute the best EPR/N1 targets, fuel/time/performance computations. I was highly involved with the development of the Autothrottle for the 737-300 and was Project Manager for the A/T for the 747-400. Whilst neither of these autothrottles were perfect, I never received an inservice report of a nuisance trip of this feature. This is probably due to the control law design which utilizes actual thrust as one of the determining factors for tripping the logic. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Tue Dec 19 02:01:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings 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: 19 Dec 95 02:01:01 From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) wrote >During a recent use of Heathrow Airport, I noticed a Virgin Atlantic >747-400. >It had some markings in 2 or 3 places, somewhat well above the windows. >These markings *seemed* to indicate where escape would be possible (I >*assume* emergency crews would have to somehow punch through the skin >to get to passengers). >Finally: WHY are these there ? Under what sort of conditions would rescuers >have to cut through the fuselage in such an emergency that these markings >would save them those valuable seconds ? I might be able to find out the answer if I knew the following: o approximate row number o and what markings led you to believe that they pointed to emergency entry points I'm suspecting that they may be pointing to antenna provisions. I think that side mounted Satcom provisions are basic on the 747-400...but I would have to check. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Dec 95 02:03:05 >>a Virgin Atlantic 747-400 ... had some markings in 2 or 3 places, >>somewhat well above the windows. These markings *seemed* to >>indicate where escape would be possible >I might be able to find out the answer if I knew the following: > o approximate row number > o and what markings led you to believe that they pointed to emergency >entry points The markings are not just on their -400s. I know I've seen them on at least one of their 747-200s, and I think I've seen it on several. The markings are above the windows, either above each door or roughly midway between them -- I know I've got pictures around here somewhere but of course can't find them when I want them! They mark the corners of a rectangle and include verbiage along the lines of "cut here in emergency." I've never seen them on anything other than Virgin's 747s. (I haven't been close enough to one of their A340s to know if they have the same markings or not.) -- 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 Dec 19 02:03:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Boeing System Enables 747s To Navigate By Satellite 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: 19 Dec 95 02:03:05 Jennings Heilig wrote >At long last (or is that lat/long last?), the FAA has joined the 20th >Century and realized that GPS and not MLS is the wave of the future? >Hooray for them... The news release didn't give all of the information which I presented at that conference. I do have the complete paper. If anyone wants a copy, just EMail to me directly and I'll send it to them. By the way, we are actively pursuing obtaining Cat I landing certification for this architecture. We believe that we have sufficient integrity and accuracy with the current implementation to satisfy the requirements. This will be done without any augmentation. Right now the GPS installations available for the 737-300/400/500/600/700/800, 747-400, and 777 (with Market B) will give authorization for near CAT I approaches limited to 250 ft. Some call these "non-precision" but it is difficult for me to call them that when they are done with lateral and vertical guidance. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Boeing System Enables 747s To Navigate By Satellite 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: 19 Dec 95 02:03:06 I had better add a PS. Boeing is performing the planning necessary to implement an MMR which would have the capability to support MLS approaches as well as GPS approaches to CAT II, III. The first installation would probably be an ILS-lookalike. The rest of the developments will be paced by industry definition (via ARINC 755) and airline interest. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Project Manager, CNS/ATM Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eemaan@aimnet.com (Ethan Schell) Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Dec 95 02:03:06 In article , John wrote: > >> The problem > >> seems to be an incorrect altimeter setting/ indication problem as the > >> pilots were 300 ft. lower than they thought.<<< > > Altimeter settings are only updated once and hour in the Artcc's. According to the AIM, ATIS is updated upon the receipt of any official hourly and special weather (I'm assuming the tower was open). Is an altimeter change of .3" within one hour not significant? Ethan Schell Your life vest is under your seat. From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gugerell@inmedias.ping.at (Peter Gugerell) Subject: Re: Question about European JAA & JARs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: gugerell@inmedias.ping.at Organization: ping - Personal InterNet Gate Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Dec 95 02:03:06 On 10 Dec 95 02:51:40 Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) wrote: > Can anyone enlighten me about the structure of the European JAA and > the way that JARs are elaborated (is it a top down procedure or do > national CAA authorities have to propose new regulations before the > JAA will consider them)? Also, how does JAA liaise with the FAA? The JAA (Joint Aviation Authority) is not part of the European Commission, but a "club" of Aviation Authorities. Originally it was founded to harmonize airworthiness regulations across Europe. Nowadays it tries to harmonize other regulations as well - with little success so far. JAR's are by themselves not legally binding. Anyhow, some are enforced by the European Commission and therefore are mandatory. The rest of the JAR's would only be legally binding if the national authorities would convert them into national law - which fortunatelly didn't happen yet. The JAA is a strictly technocratic group of people, lacking any democratic structures. Recently it's work was heavily critizised for ignoring safety factors. Best regards: Capt. Peter Gugerell, Austrian Airlines ===================================================================== PETER GUGERELL * Vienna, Austria ********** gugerell@inmedias.ping.at ===================================================================== From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: FlyPBA@one.net (Gordon K. Werner) Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OneNet Communications (one.net) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Dec 95 02:03:06 for those who track aircraft fleets, etc... COMAIR has just received its newest CRJ Aircraft 7091 - N951CA (It arrived at CVG Yesterday) Gordon -- Gordon Karel Werner COMAIR CVG CSA FlyPBA@one.net FlyPBA@aol.com From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: FlyPBA@one.net (Gordon K. Werner) Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OneNet Communications (one.net) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Dec 95 02:03:07 COMAIR evaluated the 146 or the ARJ before purchasing their CRJs....but they laid it on the line and asked BAE to sho them any airline that has made consistant profits using the ARJ on routes/segment lenghts equivalent to what COMAIR uses their CRJs on... BAE could not show any and COMAIR ended up with the CRJs, and double digit growth, month over month End of story. Gordon -- FlyPBA@one.net FlyPBA@aol.com From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin Fiddler Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Dec 95 02:03:07 On 16 Nov 95 03:48:44 Pete Mellor wrote: >"The European", No. 287, 9-15th November 1995, contained the following:- > > "IATA denies cover-up over air accident statistics" > >Business & Economics section, front page. By-line: Ian Verch\`ere > >Begin quote:- > >More than half of the 722 deaths in airline crashes last year occurred >on aircraft employing advanced automation systems, according to the >International Air Transport Association (IATA). In its latest annual >report, the Geneva-based body reveals that "at least eight accidents >and incidents were related to design features of highly-automated >aircraft". > >Four of these accidents, it says, resulted in 383 fatalities and >accounted for 53 per cent of all lives lost last year. Just a quick question - I wonder what proportion of passenger hours/miles are flown on "aircraft employing advanced automation systems"? A pretty large proportion in my opinion, especially if the definition of "advanced automation" includes an FMS, autopilot, autothrottle or cat IIIb autoland! Maybe at least 53%! Martin From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Dec 95 02:03:07 That sort of "journalism" is the problem. Sure, 58% (or whatever the figure is) of people killed in aircraft accidents were killed in "high tech" airplanes. Within a few years, that figure will no doubt be up to an astonishing 95%, I divine. How so you say? Well, look at the numbers of people flying on board "high tech" aircraft vs. people flying on "low tech" aircraft. It's a simple fact of arithmetic that as more airlines fly more "high tech" aircraft, and there are still crashes (as there always will be), more and more people as a percentage will die in those aircraft. Jeez...I'm not even a rocket scientist and I figured that out. Sounds like Sam Donaldson journalism to me. Jennings Heilig From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Cochran_ted@htc.honeywell.com (Ted Cochran) Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Technology Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Dec 95 02:03:07 In article , Pete Mellor wrote: > "The European", No. 287, 9-15th November 1995, contained the following:- > > "IATA denies cover-up over air accident statistics" > > ... > Begin quote:- > [snip] > According to spokesman William Gaillard, this includes a yearly seminar > on "human factors", which industry experts say accounts for about 60 per > cent of all accidents. > > End quote. > I had no idea that those seminars were so dangerous!!! --tc From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: alfonso@melbpc.org.au (Vince Alfonso) Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Dec 95 02:03:08 >Hans Krakauer, senior vice-president of aviation for the International >Airline Passengers Association said: "It's not just that these aircraft >are technologically highly developed, but many are being flown by pilots >who are technologically highly underdeveloped." The Above comment is all too correct. Airlines, particuraly, Asian airlines are experiencing such rapid growth that finding crews is difficult. To make the problem even worse many Airlines want 'local' crews (read 'paid less') rather than expatriates. Many Asian airlines have cadet training schemes putting pilots, barely capable of flying IFR in command, into the Airline environment. The most obvious exceptions to this local rule are SIA, Cathay and DragonAir. All use expatriate crews extensivley and as such all enjoy a high saftey and service standard combined with stong Company loyalty by the crews. On that point I beleive that Cathay is suffering somewhat on the loyalty front with many recent crews on newer lower pay scales opting out for other better paid positions. It all leads down the same old 'catch 22' trail. Everyone wants experienced crews but how do you get them? The point is though that only the safer airlines will see reasonable profits in the long term. A recent publication of a saftey journal cited that unless present accident rates are curbed, (presently .04 accidents per 100,000 hrs), then that when combined with the predicted increase in air travel would result in a major hull loss every 2 weeks by 2010. WOULD YOU FLY, GIVEN A CHOICE, ON AN AIRLINE WITH A POOR SAFTEY RECORD? Vince From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jason@svcdudes.com (Jason Proctor) Subject: Virgin 747 birdstrike Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Dec 95 02:03:08 Hi all, I was (un)lucky enough to be on board a Virgin 747-200 that lost an engine due to a bird strike a while ago (August 2). About a minute after takeoff, in the clouds above SFO, there was a big bump followed shortly by fuel venting from what I assume to be a jettison port at the end of the wing. People further forward than me reported seeing a jet of flame being produced by engine #1 (starboard side inner, I think...). Glad I didn't see that... Anyway I have a couple of questions regarding the incident and hope all you airliner experts can help me out here. I read s.a.a primarily to assuage my fear of flying and you've done me no end of good. 1. I thought engines were supposed to survive bird strikes? I read here about the GE90 failing its strike test because it vibrated too much afterwards or something. Presumably RB-211s aren't just allowed to explode....? 2. Will there be an investigation into the incident and the results made public? Talking with other passengers it was clear that several disputed the bird strike story. 3. Further to the discussion on 747s flying on 3 engines, I can report that despite losing one at what I assume to be a fairly critical time, and being fully loaded, ours did just fine. In fact until I saw the fuel venting I thought the bump was just one of those bangs and scrapes that happen naturally during takeoff.... Thanks in advance. J From kls Tue Dec 19 02:03:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Dec 95 02:03:09 >I was (un)lucky enough to be on board a Virgin 747-200 that lost an engine >due to a bird strike a while ago (August 2). About a minute after takeoff, >in the clouds above SFO, there was a big bump followed shortly by fuel >venting from what I assume to be a jettison port at the end of the wing. Fascinating -- I watched your flight dumping fuel from my office! At the time, I just noticed an aircraft flying south along the coast (not a normal pattern) with what appeared to be unusually heavy contrails, especially for such a low altitude. I didn't know what had actually happened until several days later when another reader of this group mentioned having seen the aircraft at United's maintenance base later on, and we managed to piece together the story. >People further forward than me reported seeing a jet of flame being >produced by engine #1 (starboard side inner, I think...). #1 would be the outer port (left) engine; starboard inner would be #3. In any case, I'm not sure the flames would necessarily indicate that the engine had completely bought the farm. The bird ingestion most likely would have reduced the airflow, which could result in a large amount of unburned fuel going out the back and finally finding enough air with which to finish burning. >1. I thought engines were supposed to survive bird strikes? I read here >about the GE90 failing its strike test because it vibrated too much >afterwards or something. Presumably RB-211s aren't just allowed to >explode....? Engines have to survive bird strikes to a point. My recollection of the exact numbers is imprecise, but they must be able to ingest a chicken (10 pounds?) and be able to continue running for 60 (90?) minutes with no more than 10% (?) reduction in thrust. That still means that a large goose could destroy an engine that met all the certification standards. Those weren't RB.211s, BTW -- Virgin's 747-200Bs and their 747-100 all have Pratt and Whitney JT9D engines, while their 747-400s have GE CF6-80C2 engines. >2. Will there be an investigation into the incident and the results made >public? Talking with other passengers it was clear that several disputed >the bird strike story. An in-flight engine shutdown always triggers an investigation to a degree, especially for an engine type that's used for ETOPS even if the engine involved in the failure was not being used in an ETOPS application. (The JT9D and CF6-80C2 are both used in ETOPS on the 767, A300, and A310.) On the other hand, I'm not sure there'd be that big a deal made in the case of a bird strike, since they're not uncommon, and assuming it was in fact a bird strike as evidenced by bird remains in the engine. >3. Further to the discussion on 747s flying on 3 engines, I can report that >despite losing one at what I assume to be a fairly critical time, and being >fully loaded, ours did just fine. In fact until I saw the fuel venting I >thought the bump was just one of those bangs and scrapes that happen >naturally during takeoff.... My one experience with an in-flight engine failure was also on a 747 out of SFO, in my case a United 747-422 on a short trip to Chicago. The #2 engine began overheating early in the takeoff roll. We were using runway 1R, which isn't all that long and ends up in the bay, so the pilots elected to takeoff and return rather than reject the takeoff, which is never a pleasant maneuver. We suffered a series of compressor stalls immediately after takeoff, which sounded and felt very much like the thump of the landing gear retracting, except *many* times louder, and repeating over about ten seconds. Clearly not a normal takeoff noise, yet otherwise the flight felt perfectly normal until our usual turn to the right continued beyond the usual 90ish degrees, taking us onto a course down the bay. -- 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 Dec 20 15:52:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: AllanElkowitz Subject: Tower Air 41 incident at JFK Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:01 Organization: Internet Online Services As I watch television here, Channel 4 has just shown live pictures of a Tower Air 747, Flight 41 bound for Miami, which has skidded off the runway at JFK when the front landing gear seems to have collapsed on takeoff. One of the engines (#4?) is lying on the ground a few plane lengths from the aircraft and passengers are being evacuated. The news media reports that there were only a few minor injuries and variously reports 350-400 passengers. From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: jhacker@ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey Hacker ) Subject: Re: Airbus 3XX on the telly References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:01 >Since the oldest 747s are 25+ years old, "30 years ago" would be 1965? >I believe you are talking about the Bristol Brabizon from 1946 or so. >I recall it had 8 Rolls-Roycle Merlins driving co-axial propellors > >It seems that its much smaller brother, the Bristol Brittania >was a bit more succesful... though both Brittania, Constellation, >Stratocruiser and DC-7 didnt fare too well in competetion with >the 707 and DC-8. Yeah, but the Bristol Britania had one thing the earliest DC-8's and 707's didn't - it could fly the transatlantic run nonstop - I remember old El Al ads for their service from New York (Idlewild) to London with the heading "No Goose, No Gander" meaning they didn't have to stop in either Goose Bay, Labrador, or Gander, Newfoundland because they were flying the Bristol Britania. Jeff From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:02 Jason Proctor (jason@svcdudes.com) wrote: : Hi all, : I was (un)lucky enough to be on board a Virgin 747-200 that lost an engine : due to a bird strike a while ago (August 2). About a minute after takeoff, : in the clouds above SFO, there was a big bump followed shortly by fuel : venting from what I assume to be a jettison port at the end of the wing. : People further forward than me reported seeing a jet of flame being : produced by engine #1 (starboard side inner, I think...). Glad I didn't see : that... #1 = port side outer #3 = starboard side inner : Anyway I have a couple of questions regarding the incident and hope all you : airliner experts can help me out here. I read s.a.a primarily to assuage my : fear of flying and you've done me no end of good. : 1. I thought engines were supposed to survive bird strikes? I read here : about the GE90 failing its strike test because it vibrated too much : afterwards or something. Presumably RB-211s aren't just allowed to : explode....? It may have been a birdstrike that caused damage, they have in the past or there could be some other reason for it. I inspected an L1011 engine (RB211-22B) that diverted into Orlando after the vibration levels went beyond limits. There was no visible external damage but the HP section of the turbine had lost almost two complete stages. There was no jet of flame or other symptoms reported. None of the passengers knew anything about it until the captain announced his decision to divert. : 2. Will there be an investigation into the incident and the results made : public? Talking with other passengers it was clear that several disputed : the bird strike story. An inflight shutdown requires the pilot to file an air safety report and this has to be sent to the UK Civil Aviation Authority. The extent and type of damage the engine sustained will be discovered on engine overhaul : 3. Further to the discussion on 747s flying on 3 engines, I can report that : despite losing one at what I assume to be a fairly critical time, and being : fully loaded, ours did just fine. In fact until I saw the fuel venting I : thought the bump was just one of those bangs and scrapes that happen : naturally during takeoff.... Hope thie reassures you. Previously if you'd thought about this scenario it would have stoked your fears. Now you can just take it in your step. ( By the way two engine shutdowns can be coped with ) -- Ian Judge _|_ ian@judgei.demon.co.uk _____(_)_____ ! ! ! From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:02 Interesting. There was mention that an engine in a 747 could also be in use on a twin with ETOPS. Question: In the case of the bird strike on a 747, would the pilots not be more likely to simply shutoff the faulty engine knowing there have 3 more , whereas in a twin engine aircraft, they would be more likely to let the engine run even if it has les thrust than normal ? Do pilots know How much thrust is actually produced by an engine ? What sort of information do pilots have on the health of an engine ? If there is a bird strike, how can pilots know if the engine is viable or not ? From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:02 >Interesting. There was mention that an engine in a 747 could also be in >use on a twin with ETOPS. Don't take that too literally -- in most cases they would be slightly different variants of the engine. For example, the United 747-422 I was on had PW4056 engines. United's 767-322(ER)s have PW4060 engines, not quite the same, but very close. I believe it's a fairly simple mod to convert one to the other, and United could swap them, pylon and all, since Boeing designed all three 747-400 pylon/nacelle versions (GE, PW, and RR) to be interchangeable with those on newer 767s. It hadn't occured to me that there would be an ETOPS issue with the 747, but the pilots explained it to me while grousing about all the extra paperwork they had to do. >Do pilots know How much thrust is actually produced by an engine ? Only indirectly -- see past discussions on EPR indicators, which you should be able to find in the archives, which you can find via the group's home page at http://www.chicago.com/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 Wed Dec 20 15:52:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@i1.net (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:03 j >3. Further to the discussion on 747s flying on 3 engines, I can report that >despite losing one at what I assume to be a fairly critical time, and being >fully loaded, ours did just fine. In fact until I saw the fuel venting I >thought the bump was just one of those bangs and scrapes that happen >naturally during takeoff.... I recall an incident several years ago with a Continental 747 departing LGW at maximum takeoff weight, with a maximum crosswind component. They lost an engine during the takeoff run. The aircraft lifted off the runway, and was over-rotated by the flying pilot. The tower saw the aircraft clear a small hill and descend just past it. They assumed the aircraft was going to crash and called emergency equipment. The 747 descended to a very low altitude, and was recorded by a passenger with a video camera. The F/E started dumping fuel immediately, and they were able to begin a slow climb and return to the airport. -- Steven Thomson St. Louis, Missouri - Gateway To The West From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Joseph D. Farrell" Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Benefits Litigation Concepts Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:03 The RB-211 is probably the best engine available when it comes to FOD'ding. While it is OK to dispatch an RB-211 missing fan flades, bird guts do a little bit too much damage and result in an engine change. The #1 engine is the Port outer, the startboard inner is #3. Have no fear of flying, nothing will happen 99.9999% of the time, and the other 00001% you'll never know what hit you! Joe From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stone_l@eisner.decus.org (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:03 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > The markings are not just on their -400s. I know I've seen them on at > least one of their 747-200s, and I think I've seen it on several. The > markings are above the windows, either above each door or roughly > midway between them -- I know I've got pictures around here somewhere > but of course can't find them when I want them! They mark the corners > of a rectangle and include verbiage along the lines of "cut here in > emergency." I've never seen them on anything other than Virgin's 747s. > (I haven't been close enough to one of their A340s to know if they > have the same markings or not.) I've seen them on BA planes too so I assume it is some UK requirement. -- Larry Stone | United Airlines VAX and HP-UX Systems Administrator | Maintenance Operations Center stone_l@eisner.decus.org | San Francisco, CA 415-634-4725 All opinions are mine, not United's. From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: taylrg@aol.com (Taylrg) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: taylrg@aol.com (Taylrg) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:03 Re: The "Cut Here In Emergency" markings: They are also visible on British Airways 74s, with red lettering against the blue exterior. Not to be outdone, I understand that Microsoft has taken out a lease for one of those flying billboard airlines. In this case, above the window line will be: "Copy & Paste Here in Emergency" From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings 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: 20 Dec 95 15:52:04 >I've never seen them on anything other than Virgin's 747s.< I've seen it on BCAL and BA DC-10s. And in a book I have a photo of an Air Europe 757 with the same markings in front of the L2 door and behind the L3 door. This airplane has 4 cabin doors with no overwing exits. It appears the bottom of this 'do it yourself' hatch is a foot or so above the top of the cabin doors, so you'd go through ceiling panels and not the bag bins. Another one of those quaint British traditions? Dave From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:04 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >but of course can't find them when I want them! They mark the corners >of a rectangle and include verbiage along the lines of "cut here in >emergency." I've never seen them on anything other than Virgin's 747s. Our C-130 has these markings. They mark areas of the fuselage where there is just skin and insulation between the passenger (yes, we are gibbering cargo in our Herc) compartment and outside. Specifically, there are no electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatic lines through these areas. I have been informed that the crash axe in the cockpit will slice through these areas quite easily. I hope I never have to find out if that is correct or not. -- Keith Barr COMM AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI AERO/EIT barr@netcom.com Westminster, Colorado ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ba/barr/index.html #include From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jtk@kolvir.arlington.ma.us (John Kohl) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NetBSD Kernel Hackers `R` Us Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:04 >>>>> "JF" == Jean-Francois Mezei writes: In article mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: JF> Is Virgin the only airline to have such markings? No. I saw them on CX's 747s at HKG in 1990. They seemed a bit strange to me too. -- John Kohl Hacking on NetBSD/i386 when I can. See . Member of the League for Programming Freedom--see http://www.lpf.org/ From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@i1.net (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:04 >Does anyone have any more information on the matter ? As well, what sort of >interior arrangements have been done ? The positioning of these areas leeds me >to beleive that the rescuers would also have to punch through the overhead >luggage racks after they punched through the skin of plane. >Is Virgin the only airline to have such markings. Is this a feature unique to >Virvin's 747-400s or are all 747-400s like that with other airlines not having >markings ? If I recall correctly, all British-registered airliners have those exterior markings. -- Steven Thomson St. Louis, Missouri - Gateway To The West From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: piwh@pcmail.nerc-bas.ac.uk (Paul Whiteman) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: British Antarctic Survey Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:05 In article mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: > I noticed a Virgin Atlantic 747-400....It had some markings in 2 or 3 >places, somewhat well above the windows. Thesemarkings *seemed* to indicate >where escape would be possible ""External Break-In Markings are a legal requirement by (probably) all regulatory authorities although the lack of them, if you can see the outside of commercial aircraft, is quite common. They mark positions, given by the manufacturers, where there are no internal systems to delay entry, or dangerous for emergency crews, into the aircraft if it proves necessary to cut into the fuselage for access purposes, you cannot always use the doors/emergency exits in an accident. I think it only applies to aircraft above 3,600kgs and/or those used for the purposes of public transport. Emergency Exits are also (legal requirement) marked on the outside of the aircraft. Hope this is of help/interest. Regards, Paul (Whiteman) whose views are mine and mine alone"" From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:05 In article eemaan@aimnet.com (Ethan Schell) writes: In article , John wrote: > >> The problem > >> seems to be an incorrect altimeter setting/ indication problem as the > >> pilots were 300 ft. lower than they thought.<<< > > Altimeter settings are only updated once and hour in the Artcc's. According to the AIM, ATIS is updated upon the receipt of any official hourly and special weather (I'm assuming the tower was open). Is an altimeter change of .3" within one hour not significant? ==== According to the press, the tower was not in (normal) operation at the moment, as damage to the roof was causing rain to enter the cab. The controllers had been evacuated from the cab. Also, the preliminary press reports mentioned that the tower supervisor in the cab watching the repairs being performed had communicated with the aircraft, although he had no authority to authorize a landing. (I believe the press report said that his communications were to the effect of "land at pilots discretion".) This being the case, I do NOT know whether the voice ATIS (not the automated SA available by landline) had been updated as called for, due to the abnormal situation. Disclaimer: I do not have first hand knowlege of any of the above events, but only what I gleaned from press statements shortly after the incident. 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 Dec 20 15:52:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Joseph D. Farrell" Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Benefits Litigation Concepts Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:05 >>>According to the AIM, ATIS is updated upon the receipt of any official hourly and special weather (I'm assuming the tower was open). Is an altimeter change of .3" within one hour not significant?<<< Nah, whats 300 feet among friends on final approach in fog with a 795 foot obstruction when your starting altitude is 1080 feet, hmmm, 1080-795=285, or, 15 feet underground!! Somebody was not paying attention. There is no such thing as an accident, merely the consequences of somebody not paying attention, doing something stupid or not thinking carefully about what they are about to do. I recently need stitches after doing simething stupid, not thinking and hitting a glass light cover to dislodge it, which instead broke the glass. Yet, this is an 'accident.' Ethan, your life vest is no help against trees and gound!!! :-) Joe From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: capskb@alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu (Keith Brewster) Subject: Re: AA BDL MD-80 Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:05 In article John writes: >>> The problem >>> seems to be an incorrect altimeter setting/ indication problem as the >>> pilots were 300 ft. lower than they thought.<<< > >Altimeter settings are only updated once and hour in the Artcc's. During >periods of rapid change the setting given to a pilot by a center controller >may be off be several points. Since this discussion has been revived, the facts, once posted, seemed to have been forgotten. The altimeter setting they were using was _two_ hours old, during PRESFR conditions. I haven't heard an authoritative explanation for why, yet. -Keith From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Subject: Re: Question about European JAA & JARs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:06 >Can anyone enlighten me about the structure of the European JAA and >the way that JARs are elaborated (is it a top down procedure or do >national CAA authorities have to propose new regulations before the >JAA will consider them)? Also, how does JAA liaise with the FAA? > > The European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) are an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC). There are 32 ECAC member countries, of which 23 are members of JAA - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden Switzerland, and the UK are full members; Cyprus, Malta, Monaco, Poland, and Slovenia are candidate members. The Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, and Turkey have also applied for candidate membership. The JAA are run by the JAA Committee, which is made up of one representative from each member state. The Executive Board, composed of six members from the JAA Committee, run day-to-day operations. Broad policy decisions and budgetary matters are handled by the JAA Board, consisting of the Directors General of Civil Aviation of the JAA member countries. The JAA has a headquarters staff (based in Hoofddorp, the Netherlands), headed by a Secretary General and composed of six divisions -- certification, regulation, maintenance, operations, licensing, and administration. The JAA regulatory documents, as they are completed, are referenced in the European Community Regulation on Harmonized Technical Standards, and therefore become law in the EC states. Completed regulatory documents include certification regulations for large airplanes (JAR-25), small airplanes (JAR-23), helicopters (JAR-27 and -29), engines (JAR-E), auxiliary power units (JAR-APU), propellers (JAR-P), very light airplanes (JAR-VLA), sailplanes (JAR-22), and equipment (JAR-TSO), the certification procedures for aircraft and related products and parts (JAR-21), approved maintenance organizations (JAR-145), operations of airplanes and helicopters (JAR-OPS Parts 1 and 3), abbreviations and definitions (JAR-1), and all weather operations (JAR-AWO). Notwithstanding the above discussion of legal status of the JAR codes, the JAA are developing a "JAA Convention" to provide a more formal legal status. It will enable the separate national aviation authorities to act through the JAA as a de facto single aviation authority. New regulations are proposed by working groups composed of representatives of the national regulatory authorities and industry in the different specialty areas. The working group produces a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA), which it delivers to JAA headquarters. After review by the JAA committee, the NPA will be circulated for public comment. The comments all go back to the original working group, which is charged with developing the final rule and submitting it to the JAA Committee for adoption. With the increasing emphasis on harmonization of the U.S. and European aviation regulations, the standard practice now is to create a harmonization working group to develop harmonized regulatory standards. Represented on that working group are the FAA, JAA, and other interested parties (usually industry and pilots' unions). An NPA and an FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) are developed concurrently, hopefully leading to the simultaneous adoption of harmonized regulations. The FAA and JAA liaise constantly at all levels to try to make this system work. Hope this helps. Don Stimson, FAA From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jas12@cus.cam.ac.uk (Julian Scarfe) Subject: Re: Question about European JAA & JARs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:06 In article , gugerell@inmedias.ping.at wrote: > JAR's are by themselves not legally binding. Anyhow, some are enforced > by the European Commission and therefore are mandatory. The rest of the > JAR's would only be legally binding if the national authorities would > convert them into national law - which fortunatelly didn't happen yet. ... except in the land of the overzealous bureacrat. The UK recently incorporated into law an EU directive requiring mutual validation of licences of JAA states. > The JAA is a strictly technocratic group of people, lacking any > democratic structures. Recently it's work was heavily critizised > for ignoring safety factors. I can't comment on the successes or failures of the JAA but the motivation behind its formation was laudible enough. Europe occupies a small enough geographical area that it is seriously disadvantageous to have the rules change every time you cross a border. Some degree of standardization is essential. Julian Scarfe jas12@cus.cam.ac.uk From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Airam J Preto Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:06 alfonso@melbpc.org.au (Vince Alfonso) wrote: > > [snip] > >The most obvious exceptions to this local rule are SIA, Cathay and >DragonAir. All use expatriate crews extensivley and as such all enjoy >a high saftey and service standard ... > This is prejudice. Do you really think that the nationality of the crew makes any difference in terms of proficiency and professionalism? What about the training received from the airliners manufacturers and the certification according to international standards (in the case of international flights)? Could give concrete examples, instead of personal opinion? From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bob_Crownfield Subject: Noise, size, and bypass? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: City University of New York/University Computer Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:07 When I watch a 727, the engines are small diameter, and very noisy. A DC-10 has larger engines which are apparently more powerfull, and less noisy. Last manual I saw said EPR maxed at about 2.2 if I remember that far back. Is there a relation between diameter, EPR,thrust, and noise? I assume (Yes,I know about ass u me!) that EPR and exhaust velocity are directly related to noise. How does bypass relate, if at all? It seems that thrust and noise can vary very widely from engine type to engine type. Why is the 737 engine narrow and long, while the DC-10 engine is much wider, and relatively shorter? Why... No, I will stop here! From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ctchknman@aol.com (CTchknman) Subject: Re: Cockpit noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ctchknman@aol.com (CTchknman) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:07 cockpit noise is a combination of engine placement and cockpit window design. The MD-80, for instance, is probably the quitest cockpit in the sky. The engines are very far back, and the Douglas aircraft have a very rounded window/cockpit design to eliminate airstream noise. The 727, even though the engines are far back, has a much noisier cockpit due to the sharp angles in the cokpit windscrean design. Hve also flown other various Fokker and Boeing models, but find the MD-80 the most quiet. The 767 is not bad, again due to rounded windows, but still a bit of engine noise. I bekieve the 747, at high speed sounds a bit "windy" From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Jan Petter Skarbøvik" Subject: Crash Statistics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Naeringsakademiet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:07 I am looking for crash statistics on some aircraft types. Especially the Airbus series. Is there anybody who can give me this information, or tell me where I can get the information that I need? Jan Petter Skarbovik From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: Re: landing in fog References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIESIN Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:07 >>Cat III can go down to zero-zero, theoretically. In general terms, do the majors have very many Cat III aircraft and crews? Or is Cat II pretty much the norm? dale tuttle dtuttle@ciesin.org From kls Wed Dec 20 15:52:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Moss <75500.2007@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: landing in fog References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 95 15:52:07 Terry: Each airplane, crew, and approach procedure has a matrix of certification for weather minimums. Most major airports have what they call ILS Category II minimums - where the pilot (if certified for Cat II), and airplane (if certified for Cat II) can go down to 100 ft above the ground with 1/4 mile visibility. Categroy III crews, aircraft, and runway combinations can go down to either 100 ft, 50 ft, or 0 ft if so qualified. For any given day, i.e. landing at LAX on a foggy day, one could easily find onself diverting to Las Vegas because either the pilot, airplane, or airport wasn't certified for the kind of weather the pilot found when he reached his "decision height" above the ground. Believe me, its a whole lot better for the pilot in command determine that it's not prudent to land and divert to an alternate airport than to try to squeak by and land when he didn't have adequate visual reference to the runway at decision height. -- Doug Moss 75500.2007@compuserve.com From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:05 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California American Airlines' flight 965 from Miami (MIA) to Cali, Colombia (CLO) crashed tonight at approximately 945p local time, within the last five minutes of its final approach. (Scheduled departure was 440p with an arrival time of 825p, so it was over an hour late.) Some reports said the pilots reported engine trouble. Witnesses claimed the aircraft exploded BEFORE crashing into a mountainous area, though the veracity of the timing in such reports is notoriously bad. Presumably all 159 people aboard (151 passengers and 8 crew) were killed. The accident aircraft was a Boeing 757, the first 757 to crash. (One other 757 has been destroyed -- in 1990, a China Southern 757 was damaged beyond repair while parked at Guangzou, China when it was hit by a hijacked 737.) Given the report of engine problems, it seems appropriate to note that all of American's 757s have Rolls-Royce RB.211-535E4-B engines. -- 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 Dec 21 03:33:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: NewYorkCity Subject: Re: Tower Air 41 incident at JFK References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:06 Is it my imagination or did later shots of the 747 sitting there with its nose bashed into the snow/tarmac have the TOWER logo painted over? Guess they didn't want a big color photo of their plane in that less than elegant postion, to appear in Time and Newsweek with their livery on it. Aren't there any rules against painting over your logo on your crashed aircraft? (-: No offense intended to you Tower guys out there - hey if it was my plane, I might be tempted to do the same thing (-: --- Or was it just more accumulated snow that obscured the logo? --- From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Tower Air 41 incident at JFK References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:06 >Is it my imagination or did later shots of the 747 sitting there >with its nose bashed into the snow/tarmac have the TOWER logo >painted over? I noticed the same thing. It's routine for airlines to paint out the titles and logos on wreckage as soon as possible. >Aren't there any rules against painting over your logo >on your crashed aircraft? (-: Not as long as it doesn't interfere with the crash investigation. -- 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 Dec 21 03:33:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eirikur@ix.netcom.com () Subject: Re: Tower Air 41 incident at JFK References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:06 AllanElkowitz wrote: >As I watch television here, Channel 4 has just shown live pictures >of a Tower Air 747, Flight 41 bound for Miami, which has skidded off >the runway at JFK when the front landing gear seems to have collapsed on >takeoff. >One of the engines (#4?) is lying on the ground a few plane lengths >from the aircraft and passengers are being evacuated. >The news media reports that there were only a few minor injuries and >variously reports 350-400 passengers. The story on the news here is that the pilot aborted take off due to excessive ice on the runway. The aircraft then overshot the runway, and the nose gear collapsed, and presumably this is when the nacell separated. The news also reported a total of 425 pass & crew, with 40 minor injuries.... There is an FAA and NTSB investigation pending.. From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jason@svcdudes.com (Jason Proctor) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SVC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:07 Thanks for the replies and email, all. I'm not in the airline biz, so I don't get accident reports or industry journals or anything like that. If anyone comes across a report or similar on the incident, a copy (to redfish@best.com via email) would be very much appreciated. Flight VS020 (SFO->LHR^H^H^HSFO) August 2, 1995 Thanks in advance. J From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: blomberg@plasma.kth.se (Lars Blomberg, Alfven Laboratory, Stockholm) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: blomberg@plasma.kth.se Organization: Plasma Physics, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:07 >: 3. Further to the discussion on 747s flying on 3 engines, I can report that >: despite losing one at what I assume to be a fairly critical time, and being >: fully loaded, ours did just fine. In fact until I saw the fuel venting I >: thought the bump was just one of those bangs and scrapes that happen >: naturally during takeoff.... > >Hope thie reassures you. Previously if you'd thought about this scenario it >would have stoked your fears. Now you can just take it in your step. >( By the way two engine shutdowns can be coped with ) Is it really true that two-engine shutdowns can be coped with? I seem to recall an El Al 747 freighter that lost two engines shortly after take-off from Schiphol in October 1992. If memory serves, it ended up crashing into a residential building short of the airport while trying to return to it. LGB From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:08 >Is it really true that two-engine shutdowns can be coped with? I seem >to recall an El Al 747 freighter that lost two engines shortly after >take-off from Schiphol in October 1992. If memory serves, it ended up >crashing into a residential building short of the airport while trying >to return to it. Your memory serves well regarding the end result. However, that was not simply a case of two engines shutting down -- the #3 (starboard inner) engine separated from the wing, hitting and detaching the #4 (starboard outer) engine on its way. I believe there was also wing and probably hydraulic damage that hindered the pilots' ability to control the aircraft. They did not dump fuel, so the aircraft was very heavy, thus even harder to control. United flight 811 was about an hour out of Honolulu on February 24, 1989, when a forward cargo door separated from the aircraft, peeling away a fair chunk of skin in the process. 9 passengers were ejected and they along with other debris were sucked thru the #3 and #4 engines, which failed but did not depart the airframe. Despite the airframe damage and loss of two engines (on the same side), that flight returned safely to Honolulu. The key difference was that the engines did not detach and damage the wing surfaces in the process. -- 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 Dec 21 03:33:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chris Blair <103256.76@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:08 I have also seen the markings "CUT HERE IN EMERGENCY" on C-FOOE (Canada 3000 Boeing 757). They are both approx. six feet above the windows, with one being located about two rows forward of R-2 and the other aft of R-3 (first row back from aft lavs). I think they are on other 757s in CMM's fleet; however I only have C-FOOE on film. From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: AA changes rules after BDL incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:09 In article jsteele@AZStarNet.com (Jerry Steele) writes: In article John Harvie/CAM/Lotus writes: >American Airlines quietly implemented new safety rules in the wake of last >month's near-tragedy at Bradley International Airport outside Hartford, >instructing its pilots to fly 100 feet higher than the required minimum >elevation for non-precision landings at all airports. Question from non-pilot (frequent passenger) to all you pilots: What happened to the ground proximity warning system? ===== I do not know the specifics of the incident. I will say the following general statements about GPWS. During landing, by definition the aircraft will get close to the ground. To reduce false alerts during normal approaches, the GPWS monitors the flap setting and gear position, and MODIFIES it's warning logic to allow normal operations. This is intended catch unstabilized, high descent rate approaches. Also, during PRECISION (ILS) approaches, the GPWS monitors the glideslope needle deflections to alert the crew if they descend below the ILS glideslope. Most air carrier instrument approaches tend to be ILS approaches. Begin speculation: From what I gather from the press reports, the aircraft was on a NON-PRECISION (no ILS) approach. It appears that the aircraft was in landing configuration at the time, and the aircraft appears to have been on a stabilized approach (although it may have been lower than usual due to the alleged altimeter setting error). Because of these factors, there may have been no way for the GPWS to determine that the aircraft was NOT over the runway at the time. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. That being said, the industry has been looking at ways of improving the GPWS, through combined use of GPS position and a high-resolution terrain database, for several years. The recent availability of cheap memory and computing power now make it possible to make the GPWS more bullet-proof. While avionics are under development, no certified boxes have yet been manufactured. Disclaimer: I know nothing about the specifics of this incident aside from press reports and postings on this group, but am familiar with the general principles of GPWS operation. ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Joseph D. Farrell" Subject: Re: AA changes rules after BDL incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Benefits Litigation Concepts Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:09 Andrew Goldfinger wrote: >In article John Harvie/CAM/Lotus, >John_Harvie/CAM/Lotus.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com writes: >>The plane should have been flying at 1,080 feet, but instead approached >>at less than 900 feet and sheared off the tops of oak trees along Metacomet >>Ridge in East Granby, Conn. >Does this mean that an aircraft flying a proper approach would have >cleared the ridge by only 180 feet? Isn't this too close for comfort? No, the appraoch would clear the tree tops by about 400 feet. The pilots begin a VOR 15 approach from 1080 feet IF the runway is in sight, and then they descend from there. . . From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: amb@cs.columbia.edu (Andrew M. Boardman) Subject: Re: AA changes rules after BDL incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Slug Hordes of the Planet Gamma Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:10 Andrew Goldfinger wrote: >Does this mean that an aircraft flying a proper approach would have >cleared the ridge by only 180 feet? Isn't this too close for comfort? Actually, I've got the approach plate in front of me, and the ridge is marked at 819' +/-. The MDA is, indeed, 1080', leaving a scant margin of 261'. The ridge is also only about 1.5 miles beyond the FAF, which needs to be crossed at 2000', which indicates a pretty steep descent to get down to the MDA, even with 0.3" Hg of altimiter error. I'd expect, considering today's accident driven FAA, that we're going to see another stepdown fix in the near future keeping aircraft higher over the ridge until after they've passed it on this approach. It looks like this is another case of an accident being caused by the snowballing of otherwise manageable factors; I *am* curious what source AA crews use for QFE, and if that source (if they're not calculating it themselves) was on a slower update cycle than the well-distributed QNH. (Do ATC units have fingertip access to QFE?) Time (and the NTSB) will tell... andrew From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jas12@cus.cam.ac.uk (Julian Scarfe) Subject: Re: AA changes rules after BDL incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:10 > The plane should have been flying at 1,080 feet, but instead approached > at less than 900 feet and sheared off the tops of oak trees along Metacomet > Ridge in East Granby, Conn. In article , "G. E. Lambert" wrote: > It is my understanding that AA flies all approaches, visual and > instrument, using QFE altimeter settings. If this is still the case and it comes out in the investigation that an altimeter setting error was a contributory factor in the accident, it will be very difficult for AA to continue to justify the use of QFE as a landing datum. AFAIR this is not the first AA accident that involved QFE confusion. In the UK, QFE is the default landing datum, though more and more pilots and operators seem to be going over to the use of QNH. Because UK controllers are used to issuing QFE, the reminder to do this is a standard part of radio procedure. However, in a country where landing on QNH is the norm, and QFE is presumably issued only on request or by arrangement and it would be easier for the crew to use the wrong datum. The danger is always that the crew forgets to switch from QNH to QFE at the appropriate time (I have no idea at what point QFE is set in AA ops, but it's typically somewhere between the IAF and FAF). Inadvertently using QNH in place of QFE would result in the altimeter overreading by the airfield elevation. With the usual disclaimers about speculation before the publication of the NTSB report, it is interesting to note that BDL has an elevation of 174 ft. Thus the minimum descent height (above the airport) for the approach was 908 ft, not much different from the *altitude* (amsl) at which the CFIT took place. > Does this mean that an aircraft flying a proper approach would have > cleared the ridge by only 180 feet? Isn't this too close for comfort? I was going to say that I would email someone who might well know the answer to this, but there seems to be no need. He's beaten me to it: http://www.terps.com/terps/bdl/welcome.html ...might be interesting reading for all those interested in this accident. 250 ft is the standard required obstacle clearance (ROC). Julian Scarfe jas12@cus.cam.ac.uk From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "G. E. Lambert" Subject: Re: AA changes rules after BDL incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:11 When in landing configuration (they were) the GPWS must sense "excessive" rate of closure with terrain, as measured by a radio altimeter that is looking straight down, not forward. "Excessive rate" is a function of radio altitude. Obviously, the system must permit rates on the order of 700 to 1000 fpm or no landing could ever be completed without a warning. In this incident, the rates apparently never exceeded the "excessive" threshold. If they had I think the outcome would have been much different (much worse). From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Randy Vallier Subject: Re: The Regional Jet order update. OCT 1995. References: <45uknl$f00@pdn.eng.paradyne.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cen-Com Internet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:11 logier@qus102.qld.npb.telecom.com.au (Rob Logie) wrote: > > ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) writes: > >One humorous note: At one airline early in the BAe-146 service, > >the "BAe" in was understood to mean "Bring Another engine", as there > >were problems bringing the engines into service - the gas generator > >section was originally designed as an APU... > > I have been told that the BAE146's being a four engined airplane is > just a rumour. The are really a tri-jet with a spare ..... |-) nope..United Express/Air Wisconsin needs all four turn'n and burn'n in order to get outta Aspen, Colorado without taking some trees and accidentally pickn up some skiers... Nate From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jconrad@u2.eminent (/E08618/jconrad/James Conrad) Subject: Re: Engine-Out Compensation System References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jconrad@u2.eminent Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:12 > I'm looking for info on engine-out compensation systems. >What aircraft have them? How does the system work? >Is there a nuisance failure problem with the system? Any >personal experiences with the system or comments on >how it could be improved? > Dan, I'm aware of a system on the Swearingen Metro II which consisted of a tail mounted RATO bottle which was armed on takeoff and fired if either engine lost torque. I don't remember all of the details but I believe that it burned for about 10 seconds and gave you time to get the gear up etc. It was designed for aircraft operating at high density altitudes. I believe that it was installed on some of the aircraft operating in the Rockies and on the Swiss aircraft. Jim Conrad From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Re: Engine-Out Compensation System References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:12 The MD-80 (and now the new MD-90) has engine-out compensation as part of its DFGS (Digital Flight Guidance System), and the airplane can even complete an Autoland if the engine failure occurs once the mode is engaged. As far as I know this capability is fairly standard these days on flight guidance systems. From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ryan75@aol.com (Ryan75) Subject: Re: Engine-Out Compensation System References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ryan75@aol.com (Ryan75) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:13 Another aircraft to consider is the MD-80. I have a brochure from McDonnell Douglas from the late '70s or early '80s detailing a system called ART, or Automatic Reserve Thrust. I don't know if the system still exists; the brochure is rather old, as it refers to the aircraft as the DC-9 Super 80... Ryan Stevens ryan75@aol.com From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: Engine-Out Compensation System References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:13 FMCDave (fmcdave@aol.com) wrote: : The Boeing airplanes which I am familiar with (and have an autothrottle) : detect an engine failure and provide thrust compensation. If the airplane : has a Flight Management Computer, it will compute the best EPR/N1 targets, : fuel/time/performance computations. : I was highly involved with the development of the Autothrottle for the : 737-300 and was Project Manager for the A/T for the 747-400. Whilst : neither of these autothrottles were perfect, I never received an inservice : report of a nuisance trip of this feature. This is probably due to the : control law design which utilizes actual thrust as one of the determining : factors for tripping the logic. : Dave This would be a "spoiler" on the Tom Clancy newsgroup but not here. At the end of "Debt of Honor" a fully-fueled 747 is flown into the US Capitol building. It was detected in the last few seconds and a shoulder- fired heat-seeking missile was fired at it. The missile hit an engine on the 747. The book says that the pilot had to make a manual correction to keep the plane on course with the engine destroyed. So the question is: would the autothrottle actually keep the plane on course without the manual correction? Or can we assume that a pilot determined to crash the plane would be flying with the autothrottle turned off, so the book is correct? Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: prop airliners (was Re: Airbus 3XX on the telly References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:14 Jeffrey Hacker wrote: I wrote : >>It seems that its much smaller brother, the Bristol Brittania >>was a bit more succesful... though both Brittania, Constellation, >>Stratocruiser and DC-7 didnt fare too well in competetion with >>the 707 and DC-8. > >Yeah, but the Bristol Britania had one thing the earliest DC-8's and >707's didn't - it could fly the transatlantic run nonstop you sound wistful.... I'm a bit too young to have any experience on larger prop planes, were they comfortable? the antique "restoration" airliners I've walked through seem rather luxurious, 4 abreast, big windows, real aisles. At the moment, the biggest prop plane I've been on has been the ATR-72.. not my favorite aircraft due to NVH. I prefer the much smaller Bae J-31... It would seem that with the P3 continuing in production that the Lockheed Electra would be a good choice for 300-600 mile stage flights. The SFO-LAX shuttle. The BOS-EWR-DCA corridor. ROC to PIT, ROC to ORD. They are quiet from the outside.. prolly more of a "real" plane than an ATR-72 from the inside. About as big as a Bae 146. I guess during the early 60's speed was everything, so the differences between the prop and jet were more dramatic. However, the 737-400 is no Convair 880 when it comes to cruise speeds. Is a 410mph prop-jet impractical a world of 510mph jets? -tim From kls Thu Dec 21 03:33:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: Mike Subject: Re: Boeing System Enables 747s To Navigate By Satellite References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: zeus@myth.demon.co.uk Organization: The Home for Deranged Hackerfolk Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 03:33:14 In article jheilig@gate.net "Jennings Heilig" writes: > At long last (or is that lat/long last?), the FAA has joined the 20th > Century and realized that GPS and not MLS is the wave of the future? A couple of years ago one of the GPS sats faulted without an error being detected for some time (about two days if I remember correctly). This resulted in my Uni. ground station (about 60 miles inland) being positioned about 80 miles into the North Sea. I would imagine that it has taken this long for error detection to become satisfactory. Mike From kls Thu Dec 21 14:01:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kcooper@galilee.cup.hp.com (Kevin Cooper) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: Hewlett Packard Cupertino Site Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 14:01:42 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : American Airlines' flight 965 from Miami (MIA) to Cali, Colombia (CLO) : crashed tonight at approximately 945p local time News reports Thursday morning are saying the plane was 13 miles off course, and the crash may have been due to a navigational error. This was quoting a Colombian government air transport official. It's too early to tell. Better news is that (unconfirmed) there may be some survivors! It will not be a very merry Christmas for the families of the rest, though. To address a topic that has been asked lately, EasySabre reports: "> /ad,aa965,20dec " "The requested flight information is currently unavailable. " "For information, please call American Airlines. " (1-800-433-7300 in the continental U.S.) Kevin Cooper From kls Thu Dec 21 14:01:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 14:01:42 >News reports Thursday morning are saying the plane was 13 miles off course, >and the crash may have been due to a navigational error. This was quoting >a Colombian government air transport official. It's too early to tell. AMR chairman Robert Crandall also said "the flight path was somewhat to the east." >Better news is that (unconfirmed) there may be some survivors! It will not >be a very merry Christmas for the families of the rest, though. Latest I've seen is 164 aboard, including 8 crew and 4 infants, with 4 or 5 survivors. At least one reportedly had nothing more than cuts and bruises -- pretty remarkable considering how badly the aircraft broke up. Largest piece apparently is on the order of a couple meters in size. -- 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 Dec 21 14:01:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Noise, size, and bypass? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 14:01:43 >In article Bob_Crownfield writes: > Is there a relation between diameter, EPR,thrust, and noise? > I assume (Yes,I know about ass u me!) that EPR and exhaust velocity are > directly related to noise. How does bypass relate, if at all? It seems > that thrust and noise can vary very widely from engine type to engine > type. To generate thrust, air (mass) has to be accelerated in the opposite direction to the thrust (Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws of motion). In general, it is more (fuel) efficient to accerate a large amount of air a small amount, rather than a small amount of air a large amount, for a given desired thrust. (Mass flow, thermodynamics) Finally, noise is produced as something like the 8th power of exhaust velocity. Therefore: The larger the inlet area, the more air mass can be accelerated by the engine, thus decreasing the amount of air acceleration required for a desired thrust. The decreased amount of acceleration means that the exhaust velocity is much slower. Applying this to what you see on the ramp: The small inlet engines common on 60s/70s aircraft (B727, B737-200, DC9) accelerate a small amount of air quite a bit, thus leading to increased exhaust velocity and noise. The inlet size was limited by the materials technology available in building the engine. The larger engine inlets on widebody and recent narrowbody aircraft (B737-300+, A320, B757, MD80/MD90) accelerate a larger amount of air a lesser amount, thus leading to a lower exhaust velocity and less noise (compared with small inlet engines.) Note that the additional inlet area more than offsets the increased thrust on these engines, still leading to a net quieter engine. As for EPR and thrust, they are related to, but are not as closely related to noise as the above factors. Exhaust velocity (& noise) will increase with increasing EPR and thrust, all else being equal. Bypass is simply a measure of how much of the air is mixed with fuel vs. how much bypasses the core via the fan. Bypass to a large extent is a function of how much inlet area you want to cover, as you don't need all energy if you tried to burn all of the air passing through both the fan and core. Finally, the amount of secondary noise treatment (analagous to a car muffler) added to the engine varies between models, but the primary driver of noise is exhaust velocity. Hope this helps, ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Thu Dec 21 14:01:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TMC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 14:01:43 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: |> >Is it really true that two-engine shutdowns can be coped with? I seem |> >to recall an El Al 747 freighter that lost two engines shortly after |> >take-off from Schiphol in October 1992. If memory serves, it ended up |> >crashing into a residential building short of the airport while trying |> >to return to it. |> |> Your memory serves well regarding the end result. However, that was |> not simply a case of two engines shutting down -- the #3 (starboard |> inner) engine separated from the wing, hitting and detaching the #4 |> (starboard outer) engine on its way. I believe there was also wing |> and probably hydraulic damage that hindered the pilots' ability to |> control the aircraft. They did not dump fuel, so the aircraft was |> very heavy, thus even harder to control. |> |> United flight 811 was about an hour out of Honolulu on February 24, |> 1989, when a forward cargo door separated from the aircraft, peeling |> away a fair chunk of skin in the process. 9 passengers were ejected |> and they along with other debris were sucked thru the #3 and #4 |> engines, which failed but did not depart the airframe. Despite the |> airframe damage and loss of two engines (on the same side), that |> flight returned safely to Honolulu. The key difference was that the |> engines did not detach and damage the wing surfaces in the process. The other important difference was that the El Al flight happened shortly after take-off with a fully-loaded aircraft and the pilot had no safety margin (read, speed and altitude) whatever. The UA incident occurred at altitude and the crew had ample opportunity to regain level flight at a much lower altitude (they needed to descend rapidly anyway because of the loss of cabin pressure.) It would still surprise me if losing two engines on a 747 during takeoff (e.g., through bird ingestion) without collateral damage would be a situation which is regarded as normally recoverable. Daan Sandee sandee@think.com Cambridge, MA From kls Thu Dec 21 14:01:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: Michael Carley Subject: Re: prop airliners (was Re: Airbus 3XX on the telly References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 14:01:44 tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) writes: >I guess during the early 60's speed was everything, so >the differences between the prop and jet were more dramatic. >However, the 737-400 is no Convair 880 when it comes to >cruise speeds. Is a 410mph prop-jet impractical a world >of 510mph jets? The strange thing is that, for a given speed, a propeller is better (more efficient) than a jet. The problems are that people don't like to fly in propeller aircraft (``they're not real aeroplanes'') and at high speed, propellers are very noisy. On the other hand, noisy propellers keep me in a job, so I don't mind. -- "You got your highbrow funk, you got your lowbrow funk, you even got a little bit of your pee-wee, pow-wow funk" (Dr. John) Michael Carley, Mech. Eng., TCD, IRELAND. m.carley@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie Home page From kls Thu Dec 21 14:01:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: jhacker@ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey Hacker ) Subject: Re: prop airliners (was Re: Airbus 3XX on the telly References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Dec 95 14:01:44 In tim@me.rochester.edu > > >I wrote : >>Yeah, but the Bristol Britania had one thing the earliest DC-8's and >>707's didn't - it could fly the transatlantic run nonstop > >you sound wistful.... > >I'm a bit too young to have any experience on larger prop planes, >were they comfortable? the antique "restoration" airliners >I've walked through seem rather luxurious, 4 abreast, big >windows, real aisles. > I never flew a Britannia. I was pretty young in those days . But I have flown the Lockheed Electra, DC6B, DC7(including DC7B and DC7C), and Lockheed Constallation. They were all nice airplanes, but the Electra was particularly nice. I keep telling myself I want to fly up to Alaska so I can fly one on Reeve Aleutian or to the Northern Territory in Canada on First Air (if they still have them) before they are gone. Lots of room, even in coach. But somewhat rougher than a jet. I am not a fan of most commuter planes, although the ATR's and Saabs aren't all that bad - just cramped. Jeff From news Tue Dec 19 04:36:40 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-ecu.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Big Twin Competition (was Re: Boeing/MDC merger) Date: 19 Dec 1995 00:06:19 -0800 Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <4b5rpr$615@gsb-ecu.Stanford.EDU> References: <49iu4b$i5v@kragar.kei.com> In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>I was under the impression that the 777 was in competition against the DC-10 >>and the A-340, so it is really fair to compare sales of the 330 against those >>of the 777 ? > >It would be the MD-11 and not the DC-10. Otherwise, you're right, and >in general it's common to see the 777 pitted against the A330/A340 and >MD-11. The MD-11 may increasingly be left out of discussions since it >seems to have nearly disappeared from the competition, except for the >freighter market where it is doing quite well. Actually, it _is fair to compare A330 to the B777, especially since, as I believe Andrew Chuang mentioned recently, Airbus did this comparison itself in its early market reports. The recent Singapore Airlines competition was between the 777 and the A330 as well, so leading airlines are certainly making this comparison. The competition is really 777 vs A330 _and A340, but as part of that competition, the 777 is cleaning the A330's clock. The question is really whether it will eventually do the same to the A340 as well. >ETOPS across the Atlantic >is not a hard sell, but it's not clear that the same can be said about >the vast expanses of the North Pacific, so engine count vs. commonality >will undoubtedly be a key question in the Airbus vs. Boeing struggle. Is this really true for the long Pacific routes (e.g. New York-Tokyo)? It would seem a substantial part would be overland, either the Russia or Alaska or Canada. Of course, this presumes that usable emergency airfields exist in these rather remote locations. RNA From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: davea@col.hp.com (David E Allen) Subject: Re: Boeing System Enables 747s To Navigate By Satellite References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.ifr Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:45 Mike (zeus@myth.demon.co.uk) wrote: : A couple of years ago one of the GPS sats faulted without an error being : detected for some time (about two days if I remember correctly). This : resulted in my Uni. ground station (about 60 miles inland) being positioned : about 80 miles into the North Sea. I would imagine that it has taken this : long for error detection to become satisfactory. Just another reason why a vfr gps is not an ifr gps (assuming that your unit is a "vfr" unit). An ifr unit must calculate positions from all available satellites and if they don't all agree, it has to say "sorry, no position" or at least no raim. The vfr (or hiking or marine) units can just ignore any satellites they don't "like" for the sake of giving a position more of the time and looking good compared to the competition. (Right - we tend to judge gps receivers by which one has a position more of the time.) Never mind whether or not it's a good position. But rest assured - the IFR units (or 747 units) play by very different rules. dave allen - Fly because you love it. From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: caf@omen.com (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) Subject: Re: prop airliners (was Re: Airbus 3XX on the telly References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Omen Technology INC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:46 In article , Jeffrey Hacker wrote: >In tim@me.rochester.edu >>I'm a bit too young to have any experience on larger prop planes, >>were they comfortable? the antique "restoration" airliners >>I've walked through seem rather luxurious, 4 abreast, big >>windows, real aisles. >I never flew a Britannia. I was pretty young in those days . But I >have flown the Lockheed Electra, DC6B, DC7(including DC7B and DC7C), >and Lockheed Constallation. They were all nice airplanes, but the >Electra was particularly nice. I keep telling myself I want to fly up >to Alaska so I can fly one on Reeve Aleutian or to the Northern >Territory in Canada on First Air (if they still have them) before they >are gone. Lots of room, even in coach. But somewhat rougher than a >jet. I used to fly Electras in the early 60's going to and from college. They gave an interesting ride in rough weather as their wings shuddered when they hit turbulence. This was exciting because their wings were falling off. It was a relief to ride a DC-3 for the ORD-MSN leg of the trip. I don't remember how noisy the Electras were, but nowadays it seems jets are just barely quiet and smooth enough to listen to a CD player but commuter turboprops are not. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX caf@omen.COM http://www.omen.com Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software" Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, GSZ and DSZ TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-617-1698 FTP: ftp.cs.pdx.edu pub/zmodem From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: l7matt7@aol.com (L7Matt7) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: l7matt7@aol.com (L7Matt7) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:47 On the local news here in Seattle I saw some footage of the wreckage and noticed a part of the fuselage that had the registration number on it. N651AA My outdated 92/93 issue of JP airline-fleets international says this aircraft was manufactured 7/91 and delivered 8/91. c/n 24609, s/n 390. RB211-535E4-B engines. Most people who read this probably own this book, but if you don't then you need to go buy a copy! This info. is also available on disk as a database from Bucher & Co.. Does any one have any idea about what happened ? The news here said that the pilot pulled up when he saw the mountain. How could the aircraft get so far off course? I wonder if pilot fatigue was a factor... Maybe the pilots woke up when the Ground Proximity Warning System warning horn sounded. I also wonder if there was a problem with the ILS system at the airport. The pilots may have been attempting to intercept the localizer, but maybe the localizer was not in operation. Hopefully we'll learn something soon... From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:48 >On the local news here in Seattle I saw some footage of the wreckage and >noticed a part of the fuselage that had the registration number on it. >N651AA That's confirmed by people at American Airlines. >My outdated 92/93 issue of JP airline-fleets international says this >aircraft was manufactured 7/91 and delivered 8/91. c/n 24609, s/n 390. Correct except 390 is the line number, i.e., it was the 390th 757 built. The construction number, 24609, is the serial number. >Does any one have any idea about what happened ? The Columbian government hasn't made a statement yet. Presumably they will do so as soon as they have a hypothesis. (The NTSB is playing a major role in the analysis of the crash, however, they are doing so by invitation of the Columbian authorities and have deferred all comments to the Columbians.) Officials *have* said that they do not believe that a bomb or anti- aircraft fire or other such actions caused the crash. They are still running tests to completely rule out terrorism, however. (Amongst other tests, they will X-ray the bodies to look for shrapnel from any in-flight explosions.) >The news here said that the pilot pulled up when he saw the mountain. Given that it was dark and there were no lights, it's unlikely they saw the summit. The GPWS did go off, however, and the engines were reportedly at full power at the time of impact. >I wonder if pilot fatigue was a factor... Maybe the pilots woke up when >the Ground Proximity Warning System warning horn sounded. There were routine communications between the pilots and Columbian controllers up to the time of the crash, so the pilots clearly were not asleep, and communications were fine. >I also wonder if there was a problem with the ILS system at the >airport. The pilots may have been attempting to intercept the >localizer, but maybe the localizer was not in operation. My understanding is that the aircraft crashed about 40 miles from Cali. ILS is used for only the last few miles of the approach. >Hopefully we'll learn something soon... Undoubtedly we will. However, it takes time of the investigators who have the actual evidence to do their work, especially for a crash in as remote a location as this one. -- 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 Dec 27 21:43:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdk@apk.net (John Knopp) Subject: Re: Cockpit noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: APK - Internet Provider for Ohio. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:48 Previously, ctchknman@aol.com wrote: >> I bekieve the 747, at high speed sounds a bit "windy" << Incredibly so. 8-9 hrs. in a 747 at .84M will definitely kill your interest in the "fine art of conversation". As you stated, the windows are a big part of the problem but there is also the small matter of the escape hatch right above the engineer's head as well as the access door on the side of the fuselage at the rear of the cockpit. Both of these contributed a great deal to the noise levels. I loved having those doors open at the gate to dissipate some of the heat but inflight they were a nightmare! I'm now on the DC-9 and I can't get over the difference in noise levels; you can actually TALK to the other guy! -J -- John Knopp jdk@apk.net using OUI v1.01 From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sbroon@aol.com (SBroon) Subject: Re: Noise, size, and bypass? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: sbroon@aol.com (SBroon) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:49 The 727 has very old, low bypass JT8D engines, and lousy accustical panels. The DC-10 has larger high bypass engines. The JT8D was designed mostly in the '50s and early 60s! There are about 8,000 of them around, all LOUD! From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Noise, size, and bypass? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:49 >The JT8D was designed mostly in the '50s and early 60s! There are about >8,000 of them around, all LOUD! I suspect 8,000 is quite low -- 1,832 727s with three apiece, over a thousand 1st generation 737s with two each, and several thousand DC-9s and MD-80s with two each adds up to nearly 12,000, without counting spares. Other types, with smaller production runs, which used the JT8D on at least some models include the Caravelle and the Mercure. They're also not all loud, relatively speaking. The MD-80 series uses the JT8D-200 series engines which are quiet enough to meet Stage III noise requirements. Older JT8Ds, sans hush-kits, are indeed pretty loud, though not as bad as an old JT3 or JT4 from a 707 or DC-8. -- 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 Dec 27 21:43:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark_Wiklund@hmco.com Subject: Displaced Landing Thresholds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Houghton Mifflin Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:49 I have a question, and it has to do with landing thresholds. I live in Boston and so therefore spend much pleasurable time watching the activity at Logan. Many of Logan's runways have displaced thresholds (33L/4R and 15R come to mind). I assume 1) these displaced thresholds make approaches higher over noise sensitive areas, and 2) that the ILS glide slopes intersect these displaced thresholds rather than the actual advent of the runways. If I've got all my assumptions in order, I have the following questions. First, are there any legal or administrative penalties for landing short of these thresholds. Second, once you've cleared the noise sensitive areas at proper altitude, do you just aim for the numbers. And finally, is there ever any reason for the ILS glide slope to be reset away from the displacement and back towards the numbers. From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jhacker@ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey Hacker ) Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:50 In Airam J Preto writes: >alfonso@melbpc.org.au (Vince Alfonso) wrote: >>The most obvious exceptions to this local rule are SIA, Cathay and >>DragonAir. All use expatriate crews extensivley and as such all enjoy >>a high saftey and service standard ... >This is prejudice. > >Do you really think that the nationality of the crew makes any difference >in terms of proficiency and professionalism? > >What about the training received from the airliners manufacturers and >the certification according to international standards (in the case of >international flights)? > >Could give concrete examples, instead of personal opinion? I believe there has been at least one accident (Korean Air, I think) attributed to an expat crew being unable to communicate in the cockpit - American co-pilot and Korean pilot, I think - about two or three years ago. Anybody have any more info? Jeff From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:50 >I believe there has been at least one accident (Korean Air, I think) >attributed to an expat crew being unable to communicate in the cockpit >- American co-pilot and Korean pilot, I think - about two or three >years ago. Anybody have any more info? That sounds like the KAL A300-600 that crashed at Cheju on August 9, 1994. The captain was Canadian, the first officer Korean. I remember there being some communication problems but I thought it was a case of them arguing about what to do and the FO taking actions contrary to what the captain had ordered, not a language barrier. Treading gingerly back to an earlier part of the thread ... >>Do you really think that the nationality of the crew makes any difference >>in terms of proficiency and professionalism? Cultural differences are unquestionably a factor, though perhaps not the overriding factor the original poster suggested. Taking an extreme example, in Russia, pilots pick up badly needed extra money by taking on more payload than is safe. Sometimes they crash as a result -- that is just a cost of doing business. Within the context of most European and North American countries (and others who I don't mean to slight by their omission), these actions are highly unprofessional. This is all subjective, of course -- they may well look with some disdain on our rigid adherence to safety rules, turning away cargo that probably could be squeezed on board for an extra profit. In certificating third-world repair stations, the FAA has exhibited similar concerns regarding cultural biases which place profit above less tangible factors such as safety. Presumably, they look for procedures and training that minimize the risks. I could cite other examples, but I hope the point is clear -- cultural factors can be an issue in safety, though appropriate training and/or procedures can be taken to minimize the risks. I think it's better to acknowledge the presence of such issues and to deal with them rather than to claim prejudice and ignore them. -- 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 Dec 27 21:43:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ekchua@singnet.com.sg (Chua Eng Kiat) Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:51 Airam J Preto wrote: >alfonso@melbpc.org.au (Vince Alfonso) wrote: >>The most obvious exceptions to this local rule are SIA, Cathay and >>DragonAir. All use expatriate crews extensivley and as such all enjoy >>a high saftey and service standard ... >This is prejudice. >Do you really think that the nationality of the crew makes any difference in >terms of proficiency and professionalism? I fully agree with Airam J Preto. What basis is there for expatriate crews to be more professional when compared to Asian crews? None. Vince Alfonso's view, put simply, is racist! ekchua@singnet.com.sg Singapore 520229 From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@i1.net (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:51 >This is prejudice. >Do you really think that the nationality of the crew makes any difference in >terms of proficiency and professionalism? >What about the training received from the airliners manufacturers and the >certification according to international standards (in the case of >international flights)? >Could give concrete examples, instead of personal opinion? I had an friend that worked for DeHavilland Canada. They trained customer flight crews in Downsview for their Twin Otter and Dash-7 aircraft, at that time. Some of the third world pilots were downright scary. That wasn't predudice. -- Steven Thomson St. Louis, Missouri - Gateway To The West From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tlong@mail.vcnet.com (Tim Long) Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VCnet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:52 In article , Airam J Preto > Do you really think that the nationality of the crew makes any difference in > terms of proficiency and professionalism? > Well, the statistics show that the safest air transport records are in the US, followed by Europe. Central Asia, Africa, and South America fall far behind. I don't think its the ground facilities or the unusual weather in these areas that make up the difference. From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Matt Bobrowsky Subject: Flight Recorder Durability Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Intermetrics, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:52 Sorry if this is a FAQ, but can someone tell me what the housing of the orange flight recorder is made out of? I'm wondering what's supposed to make it so much more durable than the rest of the plane. Thanks, Matt From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@i1.net (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:52 Chris Blair <103256.76@CompuServe.COM> wrote: >I have also seen the markings "CUT HERE IN EMERGENCY" on C-FOOE >(Canada 3000 Boeing 757). They are both approx. six feet above >the windows, with one being located about two rows forward of R-2 >and the other aft of R-3 (first row back from aft lavs). I think >they are on other 757s in CMM's fleet; however I only have C-FOOE >on film. Canadian registered aircraft are not required to have these markings. I suspect this might have been a British registered aircraft that was transferred. -- Steven Thomson St. Louis, Missouri - Gateway To The West From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:53 I think this is one of those things like why some countries carry the registration letters under and/or above the wings. The U.S. doesn't require it, not do we require the "CUT HERE" markings. Many (most) USAF transport types carry them however. I've got photos of Gulf Air L-1011s going back to the mid-1970s and they've always carried them, as have the BOAC 747s I have photos of from 1971. Cheers, Jennings From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:53 > The markings are not just on their -400s. I know I've seen them on at > least one of their 747-200s, and I think I've seen it on several. The > markings are above the windows, either above each door or roughly > midway between them -- I know I've got pictures around here somewhere > but of course can't find them when I want them! They mark the corners > of a rectangle and include verbiage along the lines of "cut here in > emergency." I've never seen them on anything other than Virgin's 747s. > (I haven't been close enough to one of their A340s to know if they > have the same markings or not.) These markings, I think, are peculiar to UK aircraft, because they are amblazoned on British aircraft as well. I work for Qantas, and we don't have them, and I've never observed them on American reg. planes either. Their purpose is as someone already said. They mark safe areas which emergency personnel can cut into the fuselage without fear of cutting through wiring, airconditioning ducts, fuel, etc, etc, to gain access to the cabin - and yes, it would necessitate removing the cabin roofing, but that is an extremely minor consideration, as it is only held on be a few plastic clips, after all. It is a good idea, but though some other person said they were mandatory on ALL aircraft, I have never seen them on any aircraft other than UK reg. aircraft. Regards, Simon Craig simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:53 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >Interesting. There was mention that an engine in a 747 could also be in : >use on a twin with ETOPS. : Don't take that too literally -- in most cases they would be slightly : different variants of the engine. For example, the United 747-422 I : was on had PW4056 engines. United's 767-322(ER)s have PW4060 engines, : not quite the same, but very close. I believe it's a fairly simple : mod to convert one to the other, and United could swap them, pylon and : all, since Boeing designed all three 747-400 pylon/nacelle versions : (GE, PW, and RR) to be interchangeable with those on newer 767s. BA 747-436 from about the seventh aircraft ( IIRC ) were equiped with RB211-xxxH engines ( xxx = I can't remember the number :) ) which are identical to the 767 engine except for one pneumatic valve : It hadn't occured to me that there would be an ETOPS issue with the : 747, but the pilots explained it to me while grousing about all the : extra paperwork they had to do. BA used the hours gained on the 747 engine towards the ETOPS requirements. -- Ian Judge ian@judgei.demon.co.uk From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:54 Steven G. Thomson (sthomson@i1.net) wrote: : I recall an incident several years ago with a Continental 747 : departing LGW at maximum takeoff weight, with a maximum crosswind : component. They lost an engine during the takeoff run. The aircraft : lifted off the runway, and was over-rotated by the flying pilot. The : tower saw the aircraft clear a small hill and descend just past it. : They assumed the aircraft was going to crash and called emergency : equipment. The 747 descended to a very low altitude, and was recorded : by a passenger with a video camera. : The F/E started dumping fuel immediately, and they were able to begin : a slow climb and return to the airport. In the incident you are mainly correct however they effectively lost the thrust from *two* engines. #1 was the first to go and then another followed suit. The reports that the MLG hit the trees were incorrect ( Either that or they'd got rid of all the evidence when it was in the hangar the next day. ) -- Ian Judge ian@judgei.demon.co.uk From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: blomberg@plasma.kth.se (Lars Blomberg, Alfven Laboratory, Stockholm) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: blomberg@plasma.kth.se Organization: Plasma Physics, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:54 >I recall an incident several years ago with a Continental 747 >departing LGW at maximum takeoff weight, with a maximum crosswind >component. They lost an engine during the takeoff run. The aircraft >lifted off the runway, and was over-rotated by the flying pilot. [...] > >The F/E started dumping fuel immediately, and they were able to begin >a slow climb and return to the airport. What is the maximum rate at which fuel can be dumped? I assume it must be quite high if it is to make a difference during a take-off with a lost engine. LGB From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:54 > My one experience with an in-flight engine failure was also on a 747 > out of SFO, in my case a United 747-422 on a short trip to Chicago. > The #2 engine began overheating early in the takeoff roll. We were > using runway 1R, which isn't all that long and ends up in the bay, > so the pilots elected to takeoff and return rather than reject the > takeoff, which is never a pleasant maneuver. We suffered a series > of compressor stalls immediately after takeoff, which sounded and > felt very much like the thump of the landing gear retracting, except > *many* times louder, and repeating over about ten seconds. Clearly > not a normal takeoff noise, yet otherwise the flight felt perfectly > normal until our usual turn to the right continued beyond the usual > 90ish degrees, taking us onto a course down the bay. Fascinating! I know this sounds a bit weird, but I live for the day when I'm on a plane with an inflight shutdown, compressor stall (or an RTO or Go Round), maybe only if it's a 747, but I still think it would be tremendously exciting. If anyone has any similar experiences like the one above, I'd love to hear them. regards, Simon Craig simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:55 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > United's 767-322(ER)s have PW4060 engines, > not quite the same, but very close. I believe it's a fairly simple > mod to convert one to the other, and United could swap them, pylon and > all, since Boeing designed all three 747-400 pylon/nacelle versions > (GE, PW, and RR) to be interchangeable with those on newer 767s. The Pratt & Whitney engines UAL and other airlines use on their 767s are virtually identical to the engines they use on their 747s. The primary thing that differentiates a 747 engine from a 767 engine is the fuel control unit, the "black box" that monitors and controls the engine functions. United keeps only one engine type "in stock" for their 767/747 fleet. The airplane type is called out on each shop order for a replacement engine, the appropriate fuel control unit is installed along with a few other items, and the engine is sent out to the shop for installation. The pylons on the 767 and 747 are not identical or interchangeable. One of the greatest challenges faced by Boeing's engineers on the 767 was how to mount a 747-size engine under the 767's wing while maintaining adequate ground clearance without the penalty of undue drag or airflow interference. If you look at a 767, you'll see the engine is tucked up much closer to the wing than on a 747. The lessons learned have been incorporated into the planes that came later- the 737-300,400, and 500, and the 777. C. Marin Faure Video Services, The Boeing Company author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Dec 27 21:43:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Virgin 747 birdstrike References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Dec 95 21:43:55 >The Pratt & Whitney engines UAL and other airlines use on their 767s are >virtually identical to the engines they use on their 747s ... >United keeps only one engine type "in stock" for their 767/747 fleet. Close, but you missed one significant detail. United has both old and new 747s and 767s. These statements are only true for the newer ones, the 747-422 (and -451) and 767-322(ER), which use the PW4056 and PW4060 engines, respectively. The older aircraft use various versions of the JT9D: 747-122, -123 JT9D-7A 747-238B JT9D-7A 747-222B JT9D-7R4G2 767-222 JT9D-7R4D The JT9D-7R4D and -7R4G2 have one more compressor stage than the JT9D-7A, and have a greater diameter and slightly shorter length, so clearly the JT9D-7A can't be interchanged with the other two. The JT9D-7R4G2 is several hundred pounds heavier than the JT9D-7R4D, so I suspect they aren't interchangeable either. -- 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 Dec 29 22:22:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Gunnar Aaboe Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oslonett Public Access Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:21 >Does any one have any >idea about what happened ? The news here said that the pilot pulled up >when he saw the mountain. How could the aircraft get so far off course? >I wonder if pilot fatigue was a factor... Maybe the pilots woke up when >the Ground Proximity Warning System warning horn sounded. I also wonder >if there was a problem with the ILS system at the airport. >The pilots may have been attempting to intercept the localizer, but maybe >the localizer was not in operation. Hopefully we'll learn something >soon... There has been a lot of air accident around the world where the pilots have not reported any problems. I have not seen any statistics but it is during landing and in bad weather the problems is greatest. (Some one knows where this statistics can be found?) It was reported that weather conditons were good in this last accident, but the pictures from the accident showed frezing rain, and fog drifting. It was also said by the reporters that this was a problem for the rescuers. I have been working with radio transmission systems in nearly 20 years, and seen how the weather conditions affect the radio waves. The air is NOT static. It is dynamic and changing the hole time. Radio amaturs (HAM) use the space between fog and sea (ducht/channel) to get contact over long distances. On radio link systems they are talking about "space diversity", using antennas around the main antenna to catch up radiowaves that is reflected in the fog. I use field strength instruments to messure the strongest signals to the signal sourch and to get the right direction. I have seen a lot of times that the signal can bee affected and I have to do it all over after the weather has changed. In a learning book I used, a picture shows warm humid air at the top and cold dry air at the bottom, and the figure show how the radiowave is reflected. The French autor Lucien Boithias writes about all this fenomens in his book Propagation des ondes radioelectriques dans l'environnement terrestre. If a pilot use a ILS where the glidescope is too low he will not see any problems and not report any. I don't think this has been the problem in this last accident, but I think the people who have constructed this ILS systems and the people using them should know that under spesial conditions they do have have problem. -- - Gunnar Aaboe From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: mikem@earth.planet.net (Mike Musielski) Subject: Re: First 757 crash (and first AA fatality since 1979) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:21 : >Does any one have any idea about what happened ? Reports this morning from cockpit voice recorder and tower tapes seem to indicate pilot and copilot engaged in conversation about flight attendants schedules and passed the tulua vor which was an assigned reporting point for a direct approach into cali 19 using the vor/ndb approach. Plane was prolly on autopilot and they plugged in tulua coordinates on the nav computor which caused autopilot to initiate a left turn. Pilot realizing terrain and no turns should be happening at this point flipped off autopilot and initiates a right turn to get back on flight path down the valley smacked into mountain trying to climb with speed brakes deployed and power added. At this point the speculation is that the autopilot made the turn but the NTSB did make mention of the autopilot mode being changed. If the turn was continued to counterclockwise and the descent arrested at the point of the turn to the right being initiated they prolly would have made it. From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: AA 757 Crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:21 I just had to post this after listening to the latest information on CNN. This is simply stupifying to me.... two experienced AA flightcrew members, both of whom had flown the Cali approach numerous times, both of whom (presumably) were type rated in the 757...and they weren't even using the checklists??? Egad...I don't even fly a Cessna 152 without using a checklist! Apparently they had already flown past a VOR when they tuned it and directed the aircraft toward it...the airplane duly turned around and headed back toward the navaid, and that apparently is when they realized their mistake(s) and tried to fix things. Unfortunately it appears that the mountain was in the way. This is very disturbing if it's all true. To be sure, there is a long way to go in the investigation, but when Robert Crandall is issuing statements appologizing for the apparent human error involved at this early stage, it doesn't bode well for AA... Jennings Heilig From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wells.b@portseattle.org Subject: Re: Displaced Thresholds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServ News Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:22 I think you'll find that most displaced thresholds exist so that an approach slope clears an obstacle, particularly one that the airport can't remove or lower. They may also be also used to provide appropriate runway safety area dimensions. Unless there is a sizeable displacement, there's little noise benefit. A 1,000 ft displacement of a 3-degree glide slope is only 52-53 ft change in altitude. The glide slope is aligned with the displaced threshold; locating aligning back towards the pavement end would result in a approach that didn't meet clearance margins. Turbojet ops normally set up the approach on the glide slope & once the descent rate & alignment are set up & stable, I doubt there's much last-moment tweaking. From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: brianm4463@aol.com (BrianM4463) Subject: Re: Displaced Landing Thresholds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: brianm4463@aol.com (BrianM4463) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:22 I may be able to answer a few of your queries. First of all, it's a misconception that you land on "the numbers", or that the GS guides you there. A glideslope normally aims for a point at least 1000 feet beyond the threshold, whether displaced or simply defined by runway end, in an area called a touchdown zone, usually marked by two large, wide, white bars. Next time you fly, notice the skid marks on the runway; chances are there are very, very few on the numbers themselves. Most will be in an area starting 500' from the threshold extending another 1500' or so down the runway. Second, there are many reasons for displaced thresholds. One as you mentioned, is noise sensitivity. Other reasons include surface deterioration, interference with the ILS, proximity to obstacles, and so on. Occasionally, thresholds are temporarily displaced for construction or other short-term reasons. Very often, the area behind the displaced threshold is used for taxi and takeoffs, such as in San Diego. I don't have an answer about penalties for landing short of a displaced threshold, sorry. Finally, I don't know of any reason why a glide slope would be repositioned back towards what you call "the numbers" once the threshold has been redefined. Again, your use of "numbers" is mistaken - when a threshold is displaced, the numbers that define the runway direction move along with it and the ILS. Hope this helps you. Take care. B From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Vincent Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:22 The markings are also present on SIA's Boeing 747s of all series from the 212B to the 312 to the 412. Vern From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: Virgin's 747s: emergency escape markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:22 OK, we've established that the "cut here" markings are national rules that vary from country to country. We've established that they deliniate an area without much wiring/ducting where it is easier to cut. The only type of incident where these marking would be of use that I can think of is if the airliner crashes in snow, stays in one piece and is completely burried in snow. I can imagine the snow crews digging down and reaching the roof and seiing the markings , bringing down chain saw and opening the square, drop down a ladder and evacuate all 400 passengers one by one. (ok, I've seen too many movies, so add in the St-Bernards with their bottles of whiskey helping rescued passengers stay warm :-) OK, perhaps if fuselage is lying on its side, it is easier to evacuate through the roof than through the exits. But if this happens, what are the odds that the fuselage is still in ONE piece ? I am still wondering about the types of accidents where cutting through fuselage would be necessary. Are there any specific situations one could describe ? From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Flight Recorder Durability 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: 29 Dec 95 22:22:23 Cali brings to mind a question I've had for some time. Has there even been any move toward redundant CVR/FDR's? I know, short of being being cast out of pure neutronium or such they are pretty rugged. While some are lost in the incident (I recall reading of one such case recently - tail section destroyed - but the details escape me) itself, other cases have had prior damage that rendered it worthless. I've heard, for example, that the modern FDR are more frail so than the old "scribe on stainless foil" ones. (Anyone know what the MTBF really is?) Granted they are not cheap, as shown by the FAA foot-dragging on upgrading 737 FDR's; but would not dual units -- in diverse locations, pay off in just one incident? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433 From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) Organization: Kindergarten Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:23 Airam J Preto wrote: >Do you really think that the nationality of the crew makes any difference in >terms of proficiency and professionalism? A few years ago Boeing conducted workshops with several airlines in the world to improve safety. They had found that while the accident rates with widebodies were similar in all regions of the world, the accident rates with narrowbodies split the world in half. Some regions had accident rates with narrowbodies similar to the US rate (which is similar to the overall widebody rate). Other regions had an accident rate with narrowbody aircraft that was 4 to 5 times higher. Two factors may contribute to a higher accident rate: (i) crews in narrow body aircraft have (on average) less experience and (ii) some parts of the world have poor navigation aid. Their numbers showed that either (i) or (ii) did not contribute to an increased rate, but the combination of both factors proved hazardous. The fact that the widebody accident rates are similar across the board support the NO answer for this question. From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: High tech jets = High risk jets? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:23 >>>The most obvious exceptions to this local rule are SIA, Cathay and >>>DragonAir. All use expatriate crews extensivley and as such all enjoy >>>a high saftey and service standard ... > >>This is prejudice. >> >>Do you really think that the nationality of the crew makes any difference >>in terms of proficiency and professionalism? Training is one thing. Experience is another thing. An airline wishing to have a top quality and top safety image is not about to put a young guy fresh out of pilot school at the controls of a 747-400 worth many milliosn of dollars. An airline which operates in an area of the world which is not very well regulated and has many airlines whose safety is doubtful will really want to show that it is different from them and want to hire only experienced pilots. An airline who is relatively young but operates a state of the art fleet will initially not have enough in-house pilots senior enough to pilot these birds AND give the comfort level to passengers that a guy with lots of experience is at the helm. So, airlines like Cathay and SIA hired experienced and senior pilots and most of them came from countries such as the UK, Canada and Australia and USA. Furthermore, if you look back at the time where these airlines were created, cities such as Hong Kong showed a HUGE gap between the rich/educated expats and the chinese masses living in poverty conditions. Few locals at the time had the education that they now have. So, while the hiring of expat pilots may seem racist nowadays, was it not their only option back then ? The real question should be: How long because cities such as HKG and Sinpagore will have enough experienced pilots born there so that airlines like Cathay and SIA won't have to hire expats anymore ? My personal opinion is that it is slowly happening now. From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Jon H." Subject: Flight Operations...Crew Nationalities Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:24 During the 1970's and 80's I was an Aircraft Dispatcher/Flight Operations Officer for a MAJOR European flag carrier at New York's JFK...It was the avowed policy of our local "bean counters" to engage us in any moneymaking operations "pooling" arrangement conceivable. In essence we were "rent a signature" dispatchers for some of the cream of Central, South American and West African airline companies. Without appropriating the next two years worth of bandwidth, trust me....If you think jumping on Aeromexico to MEX or Air Afrique to DKR is the same as jumping on United to ORD or British to LHR because of some vague wooshy washy ICAO specs. about aircraft/crew and flight control requirements please think again...Required reading for this subject is a book called "Destination Disaster". It is about the Turkish DC10 disaster outside Orly in 1974..Although almost 20 years old now it is still the best book on the politics of building and SELLING transport aircraft and in particular how this equipment is integrated into the operations of an airline trying to rapidly expand into the 20th century. From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: qtrinkle@znet.com (Kevin Trinkle) Subject: Re: prop airliners (was Re: Airbus 3XX on the telly References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The PSA History Page Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:24 In article , caf@omen.com (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) wrote: >>>I'm a bit too young to have any experience on larger prop planes, >>>were they comfortable? the antique "restoration" airliners >>>I've walked through seem rather luxurious, 4 abreast, big >>>windows, real aisles. The military still uses chartered Convair 580s for the flight from NAS North Island (NZY) to San Clemente Island (NUC). I've been on that flight twice in my life (an impressive feat, considering I'm not in the military), and don't recall the 580 being too loud. The operator (Renown aviation) still had the original Frontier seats in it, which were rather comfortable - and offered enough legroom for me to have a carryon under the seat in front of me and still stretch. Try that today! In 1992, when they used a Convair 440 operated by Air Resorts (and painted like a banana - I've got a picture of it somewhere), that was rather noisy - and scary. The 440 was scrapped earlier this year after they couldn't fix one of its engines. >I don't remember how noisy the Electras were, but nowadays it >seems jets are just barely quiet and smooth enough to listen to >a CD player but commuter turboprops are not. It depends...the 580 we took out there was quiet and smooth, but the Great American DC-9-15 we came back on was awful...I was in 15D (the engines are at row 17), and could barely talk to my friend in 15F. Still had the original Pratts...being in row 34 of an MD-80 is still quieter than these things were, 3 rows away. From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pbyrd@ritz.mordor.com (Phillip Byrd) Subject: Re: prop airliners (was Re: Airbus 3XX on the telly References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mordor International Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:24 I, too, flew the Electra to and from college in the 1960's- on American Airlines (between Little Rock and Dallas Love Field) and Braniff (Love and Denver Stapleton). That was back when students could fly standby for half price. Sometimes I wound up in coach, but occasionaly in first class. Coach was in the front of the plane, first in the back. And let me tell there was quite a difference in the noise levels. In coach, right up there with those four big Allison turboprops, was pretty darned loud. Those really were the "cheap" seats. But in the back of the aircrart, the seats were wider, the ride was smoother and the noise level was way down. If I remember correctly, the first class section was the larger of the two. Flying was truly a different experience back then. During that same period, I occasionally flew on a turboprop equipped Convair- the 580 with Allison engines (I think) and the 600 with RR engines. I also had a few flights on the DC-6, DC-7 and even once on a Vickers Viscount (old Capitol aircraft flown by United from Memphis to Philadelphia). Flying was certainly different back then. People dressed up to fly. Food was often good. And service was gracious. Of course, if we look at what it cost to fly back then (adjusted for inflation), we understand why a lot of things were different. From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: acordell@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Arthur Cordell) Subject: rotation of earth Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Industry Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:24 During one of those interminable X-mas discussions someone noted that not only does the jet stream affect the flight time of planes flying east-west but so too does the rotation of the earth. Had never heard of this before. Seems that the atmosphere is mostly moving with the earth, but would like to know if there is any change in flight times going east one way or west the other way. arthur cordell From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: brianm4463@aol.com (BrianM4463) Subject: Re: landing in fog References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: brianm4463@aol.com (BrianM4463) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:24 >>do the majors have very many Cat III aircraft and >>crews? Yes, quite a number of them. FedEx for one, certifies a large number, if not all, of their crew to Cat III standards, along with their aircraft. FedEx also uses head-up displays on some aircraft to facilitate the certification to lower minimums. From kls Fri Dec 29 22:22:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: landing in fog References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Dec 95 22:22:25 In article writes: >>>Cat III can go down to zero-zero, theoretically. > >In general terms, do the majors have very many Cat III aircraft and >crews? Or is Cat II pretty much the norm? Category III aircraft are increasingly widespread. There are far fewer airports capable of such operations (fewer than a half dozen in the US capable of IIIB, for instance, last I checked). -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av