From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:46 Message-ID: Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >My friend maintains that the upper deck doors are designed to be used as : >emergency exits only and could not be easily modified for routine use. He : >said that the slide housing blocks the entrance. I knew this was true on : >the -100 and -200 but are the -300 and -400 the same? : The -100 and -200 don't have an upper deck door, except for the small Yes, it has, but only at one side. On VIP flights with 747F and C's, the passengers board through this door. And how do you think the crew gets in the plane? The -300 and -400 have two doors halfway the upper deck. : hatch above the cockpit. (I assume the same is true for the -400F : which does not have the long upper deck.) : The upper deck door on the -300 and -400 is hinged at the top and : swings up, as opposed to swinging out and to the side as on the main : deck doors, or pulling up and into the fuselage like on a DC-10. I No, that is on the L-1011. DC-10 (and MD-11, as well as Airbus) doors, swing out and to the side, but maintain their orientation with respect to the fuselage, while Boeing doors rotate. : don't know where the slide housing is located offhand, but I suspect : the upward opening door would make an already troublesome jetway : design even more cumbersome. -- Filip De Vos "Manned exploration initiatives will be difficult to afford when transporting a fidevos@eduserv.rug.ac.be single meal to the US space station will cost $15.000" Lt Col John R. London III From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:47 Message-ID: >: The -100 and -200 don't have an upper deck door, except for the small >: hatch above the cockpit. >Yes, it has, but only at one side. On VIP flights with 747F and C's, the >passengers board through this door. And how do you think the crew gets in >the plane? The -300 and -400 have two doors halfway the upper deck. The -400F has a glorified ladder leading from the upper deck down to the main deck; presumably earlier 747F and C models have this as well. I had assumed the crew boarded through one of the main deck doors and climbed up. I don't have much contact with freighters, though I have noticed regular passenger ladders positioned at the first or second main deck doors. I've never noticed any sort of stairs that reached all the way up to the upper deck, and I would think that would stand out pretty clearly. I guess it's time for a sightseeing trip of the scenic SFO cargo area! :-) -- 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 Apr 9 14:22:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:47 Message-ID: In article Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) writes: >In article , >Karl Swartz wrote: >> >>The -100 and -200 don't have an upper deck door, except for the small >>hatch above the cockpit. (I assume the same is true for the -400F >>which does not have the long upper deck.) >> > >Isn't the upper-deck door on the starboard side on the -100, -200, and >-400F a service door? It was stuck in there to meet FAA evacuation requirements on all 747 models. Not sure what good it would be for servicing, since not much can reach that high. Upper galley containers are shipped up via elevator. Given how much slides flop around in the wind, I wouldn't be too keen to go down three stories in one. The overhatch thing with the inertial reels is for the flight crew only. -- 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 Apr 9 14:22:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:48 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>>The -100 and -200 don't have an upper deck door, except for the small >>>hatch above the cockpit. (I assume the same is true for the -400F >>>which does not have the long upper deck.) > >>Isn't the upper-deck door on the starboard side on the -100, -200, and >>-400F a service door? > >I had forgotten about that door. On UA 747s (the only ones I've been >on), I think it's inside the cockpit area, adjacent to the FE panel. >I've never seen it used on a UA plane, though UA has the optional >dumbwaiters or elevators for the upstairs galleys and thus wouldn't >need to use them for galley servicing. Perhaps other airlines whose >747s don't have that option use the door for servicing, though it's >smaller than the regular doors. > No such door that I'm aware of. The 747-100 and 200 have 2 doors on the upper deck just aft of the flight deck These are EMERGENCY exits only. The EUD on the -300 and -400 have doors midway along the upper deck that look conventional from the inside and outside when closed, But when opened they are quite different. They open "gull wing" style (swing up) for one. The slide pack remains in position in the doorway for another. The slide pack stands around 2.5 to 3 feet high and would make entry or exit (normal) very difficult. The doors are designed for EMERGENCY use only. The reason they are increased in size is due to the larger number of pax on the upper deck. Next time you see a -200 or -100 look for the outline of the door just aft of the flight deck, one on either side, very small doors. -- ----------------------------- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org AME (Canada), A&P, PPASEL HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg ----------------------------- If it is Blue, Frozen and falls through your roof, It is not a Meteorite. From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:48 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>Thus, IMHO, if AA is going to order the B777, the majority of the >>order will be for the -100, provided Boeing is able to come up with >>a good solution for the weight problem ... > >But the 777-100 won't have that many more seats than the 767-300 (but >substantially more cargo lift), and will be very close to the A300-600, >both of which AA already has. The only reason for buying the 777-100 >is tremendous range, and right now AA doesn't have any need for that >kind of range. If they buy the 777 at all, I don't see why they would >pick the -100 -- and you make a convincing case for the bigger 777s >being too big for AA's operations, so it seems unlikely that we'll see >any AA 777s. > To the best of my knowledge, the B777-100X (and the A330-200 as well as the A340-200/-8000) can carry thirty more passengers in a typical three-class configuration than the A300-600 and the B767-300. IMHO, for Boeing to get AA interested in the B777, Boeing will have to offer AA not just the ultra-long range B777-100 but also the so-called B777-100 Lite. As I have said it long long time ago, I think the B777-300 will make the B777 program an extremely successful one. The B777-100X will make a lot of sense for airlines which operate a large fleet of B777-200/-300. For airlines which don't need much large capacity aircraft, the B777-100X alone does not seem to be a good choice. Nevertheless, I don't think AA will blatantly rule out the B777. AA will make sure it gets the best possible deal. After all, AA has been operating two very similar aircraft (the B767 and A300). Thus, there is no guarantee that AA will choose the most "sensible" aircraft. Also, don't forget Boeing is still studying the B767-400X (and perhaps even resurrects the B767ERY for AA?). If I were a Boeing marketing executive, I would have made sure not to let Airbus get the AA order. Without AA's order, the A330 program will be in deep trouble. ILFC's order is certainly sweet for Airbus, but a sizable order from AA will definitely give a big boost for Airbus especially the A330 program. AA did it once for Airbus with the A300 order; and the history might repeat itself. IMHO, this is a "strategic" order for which both players will fight very hard. Thus, I think Boeing has at least an equal chance even though, on paper, Airbus has the more appropriate equipment for AA's need than Boeing has. BTW, since I'm talking about the A330, I would like to mention something about Philippine Airlines' A330 order: from various sources, it seems to me PAL is taking over Air Inter's A330 delivery slots. Can anyone verify this? (Earlier, there was a rumor that PAL was going to buy the A330 from Air Inter. Thus, my observation seems to be consistent with the rumor.) -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu (Peter Hollingsworth) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Grandscale Earthly Destructor Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:48 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > DL is similarly in a cost-trimming mode, though they've also said they > are looking seriously at replacing the L-1011. That could mean a 777 > order, but unlike AA and UA, DL seems to like the 767 as a domestic > aircraft and now operates a substantial fleet of 767-300s which are in > a 2-class, domestic only configuration. The 767 is certainly cheaper > and DL might choose to replace the L-1011 with smaller aircraft and > more frequent flights. AA and UA have replaced a lot of DC-10 flights > with 757s on more frequent schedules. > > For trans-Atlantic flights, DL just announced a 767 order to replace > L-1011s, so their intent there is pretty clear. > The L1011-'s that Delta is using B767-300ER's to replace are the L1011-500 series. In DL's three class config, these two A/C seat 218 and 225, so DL isn't really going to a smaller A/C on there Transatlantic routes. DL is using new and reasigned MD-11's to replace the L1011-250's on the trans-atlantic routes. In this case DL is actually using a larger A/C. Domestically DL still says they need to find an A/C to replace the L1011-250's which are going to show up in a two class config on domestic routes in place of the L1011-1's, these seat close to 300, and are almost always packed. In some cases the routes cannot handel higher frequencies. -- Peter Hollingsworth The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor E-Mail:gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu WWW: http://apts19.residence.gatech.edu From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: nagarwal@neptune.cs.uml.edu (Niraj Agarwalla) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: UMass-Lowell Computer Science Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:48 Message-ID: Jennings Heilig wrote: >What are the chances that AA is going to go for the Airbus since they >were on the original "gang" that helped define (along with Delta, btw) >the 777? I've been waiting with baited breath for the AA and/or DL >announcement of their respective 777 orders, and inthe case of AA, for it >to be the launch order for the 777-100. From what I hear (more and >more) DL is very unhappy with the MD-11, and American has never been >terribly thrilled with it. AA is selling off the fleet to FedEx, and >rumors are that DL is about to do the same thing. > >So when *will* we see those big 777 orders? Delta will probably put in an order for the 777 in a year or two, in order to replace it's remaining L-1011s. Probably use the plane on European, trans-continental, and high-density routes like New England - Florida. American Airlines will, if they order it, probably use the 777 on it's trans- -continental routes (American Airlines is one of the few airlines still using wide-bodies on these routes), South America routes, and it's European routes. I don't see why they wouldn't order the 777, since one the benefits of the plane is the low training cost. Pilots flying either 757s or 767s (which both airlines have, can easily cross-train to the 777. -- Niraj Agarwalla -=- nagarwal@cs.uml.edu -=- http://www.eskimo.com/~niraj From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: jdflyvc10@aol.com (JDflyVC10) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jdflyvc10@aol.com (JDflyVC10) Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:49 Message-ID: Hey Jennings: I think the A340 gig should fly with AA............Reason: They have month to month leases on the A300's...........Plus Anthony Lawler of Airbus told me so...........so there! All the best John Dekker From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: S80 Ground Checks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:49 Message-ID: M.Misener@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Mark Misener) writes: > Last week I was on an American Airlines S80 Chicago to San Diego (and > return). I noticed that the ground crew were putting up ladders against > the leading edge of the wing near the wing-root, and were running some > kind of plastic brush, or something back and forth (from lead edge to > trail edge). I couldn't see exactly what they were doing from where I was > sitting, but, I've been on plenty of flights, and I don't recall seeing > anyhting like it before. On top of that, I was talking to a friend of > mine, and he said that he was also on an S80 recently, and observed the > same thing. He also mentioned that he noticed a parked S80 with the skins > removed at the wing-roots. Does anyone know what was going on? My guess is that these would have something to do with the MD80 wing-ice detection/prevention modifications. It turns out that MD80s can experience a form of wing icing, even if the temperature on the ramp is near 70deg F. The problem is that, on a long flight, fuel in the wings can get very cold. Upon landing (especially in humid air) while sitting on the ramp, ice can form on the wings where the cold fuel is adjacent to the skin (at the wing root). There have been incidents where this ice has broken off on takeoff roll, was ingested by the engines, and caused damage. An Airworthiness Directive (AD) was issued which initially mandated the installation of triangles with tufts of cord on them - the theory being that the crew could more easily see the presence of ice with the cords. Another carrier came up with an alternate means of compliance to the AD, which involved using some specially textured paint applied in a striped pattern over the wing. The paint appears different when clean vs. when covered with ice. A third means of compliance was to install a fuel circulation system which would continuously move the fuel around while in flight, so that none of it would get cold enough for this to be a problem. 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 Tue Apr 9 14:22:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jay Selman Subject: Re: S80 Ground Checks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Avion Foto Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:49 Message-ID: M.Misener@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Mark Misener) wrote: >Last week I was on an American Airlines S80 Chicago to San Diego (and >return). I noticed that the ground crew were putting up ladders against >the leading edge of the wing near the wing-root, and were running some >kind of plastic brush, or something back and forth (from lead edge to >trail edge). I couldn't see exactly what they were doing from where I was >sitting, but, I've been on plenty of flights, and I don't recall seeing >anyhting like it before. On top of that, I was talking to a friend of >mine, and he said that he was also on an S80 recently, and observed the >same thing. He also mentioned that he noticed a parked S80 with the skins >removed at the wing-roots. Does anyone know what was going on? The "Mad Dogs" (MD-80 series) has a wing which contains fuel tanks quite close to the skin of the wing. For this reason, they have a habit of collecting ice on the wings which can remain long after the aircraft has landed. Therefore, it is routine for someone (usually mechanics or pilots) to use a ladder to check the top of the wing on each landing to check for ice, and remove the same using the aforementioned broom. This is S.O.P. This is also why a Mad Dog often needs deicing when the temperature is far above freezing. Removing the skin at the wing-root is definitely NOT part of routine transient check...no idea what that was all about. -- Jay Selman unclejay@aol.com Standard disclaimers apply Visit the AVION FOTO Home Page at: http://users.aol.com/avfoto/index.htm From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gsmoff@Mcs.Net (gary) Subject: Re: S80 Ground Checks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MCSNet Internet Services Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:49 Message-ID: In article , M.Misener@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Mark Misener) wrote: > Last week I was on an American Airlines S80 Chicago to San Diego (and > return). I noticed that the ground crew were putting up ladders against > the leading edge of the wing near the wing-root, and were running some > kind of plastic brush, or something back and forth (from lead edge to > trail edge). I couldn't see exactly what they were doing from where I was > sitting, but, I've been on plenty of flights, and I don't recall seeing > anyhting like it before. On top of that, I was talking to a friend of > mine, and he said that he was also on an S80 recently, and observed the > same thing. He also mentioned that he noticed a parked S80 with the skins > removed at the wing-roots. Does anyone know what was going on? I sure do, the cold fuel in the center tanks of the MD-80 is prone to cause what is called "clear ice" to form at the wing roots. This icing is apparently pecular to MD-80's for some reason. Aside from the obvious hazards of icing (extra wieght and disruption to airflow) this clear ice is likely to break off the wing at rotation due to the flexing of the wing. For an aircraft with tail mounted engines whose inlet are directly in line with the icing, this event can often be fatal. American Airlines has black anti-skid paint applied to the wing in the areas prone to icing. The theory is that if clear ice is present a man scratching the wing in that area with a simple plastic pole will be not be able to feel the rough texture of anti-skid paint, thus confirming the presence of clear ice. American also has an electrically heated blanket applied to the wing skins in the area clear ice forms, I'm sure your friend happened to see a plane in the process of having that blanket changed. The wing skin itself consists of several "planks" running from root to tip parallel to the spars, these planks are for all intent and purposes none removable in the field. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dave Lawson <71202.1577@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: S80 Ground Checks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AlliedSignal Aerospace Canada Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:49 Message-ID: The MD80 has a problem that relates to the possibility of clear ice build-up on the inner wing upper surface. The ice has been known to shed during the takeoff run and become injested by the engines. The MD80 has, of course, tail mounted engines. Scandinavian Airlines lost an MD80 shortly after takeoff in late 1991 due to ice injestion resulting in engine flameout. The reason that they are out there with the pole is that they have to do a tactile check of the wing surface to detect the presence of ice. It is interesting, however, that they were doing it as recently as last week. The reason I say interesting, is that American Airlines purchased a system from Douglas that is comprised of a large aluminum skinned heater that is attached at the leading and trailing edges with many fasteners. After an aircraft is equipped with this system, they aren't supposed to be required to perform this check. The fact that they are still doing it is likely due to one of the following reasons: 1. The ground crew does it as a matter of habit, since they have been doing it since early 1992 (per the FAA AD). 2. The system was inoperative due to a fault. Dave Lawson From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Aircraft Order Update (Apr 5,96) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:50 Message-ID: The 1995 "final" list has been updated again and the URL is http://www.cris.com/~chuanga/95_order_book.shtml The URL for the 1996 list is http://www.cris.com/~chuanga/order_book.shtml Also, the A330/340 vs B777 list (which will not be updated very often because I have not "automated" the updating process): http://www.cris.com/~chuanga/a330_777.shtml A few notes: from Airbus' news release, it's pretty clear that Air China's three A340s were indeed the original ones CASC (China Aviation Supply Corp) ordered for China Southern. Also, the latest number I got for Air Inter's A330 fleet is four with no new order. It seems Philippine took Air Inter's delivery positions. This is consistent with an earlier rumor that PR was going to buy A330s from Air Inter. With the official announcement of PR's order, Airbus reached the 2000 milestone. Also, Airbus said that with the order, it has recieved more orders in the first four months of 1996 than the whole 1995 (106). Obviously, ther are some unannounced orders not included in my list . ==== *** 1996 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Apr 05, 96) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N|PR | 12C 8G 4| | | N|SR | 5C | | 2P| N|BQ | | 2 | | N|GA | | | 1G| N|McD (for World Airways) | | 2P| N|JD | | | 6I | |ILFC | 4R | 3R | | |ILFC | 3P | 5P | | |ILFC | 3U 6U 3U 7G 8| 10G | | |CA | 3| | | |NW | 20C | | | |TW | | 10P | | |DL | | 12P | | |8Q | 1U | | | |KL | | 2G | | |GECAS | | 20 2 80 5G | | |UA | | 2P | | |MH | | 10P 15R | | |PR | | 1G | | |GATX | 9C | | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 0 3 43 13 22 15| 22 2 80 0 15 10 12 38 0| 6 5| | 1996 | A I R B U S ( 96 ) | B O E I N G ( 179 ) |MD( 11)| Total by Engine Manufacturers |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| |BMW/RR | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |CFMI | 0 0 37 9 0 15| 22 2 80 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |GEAE | 0 0 0 0 15 0| 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 15 0| 0 1| |IAE | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 6 0| |P&W | 0 0 0 0 3 0| 0 0 0 0 12 10 12 5 0| 0 4| |R-R | 0 0 0 0 4 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0| 0 0| |Unknown| 0 3 6 4 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 0 3 43 13 22 15| 22 2 80 0 15 10 12 38 0| 6 5| | 1996 | A I R B U S ( 96 ) | B O E I N G ( 179 ) |MD( 11)| Announced Letters of Intent |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N|SR | 5C | | | |TG | 5G 4P | 4 2G | | |PR | | 8G | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 5 3 48 13 26 15| 26 2 80 0 25 10 12 38 0| 6 5| | 1996 | A I R B U S ( 110 ) | B O E I N G ( 193 ) |MD( 11)| 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@cris.com) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. 5 Airline Code: 8Q - Onur Air BQ - EuroBelgian CA - Air China DL - Delta GA - Garuda JD - Japan Air Sys KL - KLM MH - Malaysia NW - Northwest PR - Philippine SR - Swissair TG - Thai Int'l TW - Trans World -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Henry Law Subject: Re: Cruise Relief Pilots Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: None Reply-To: hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:50 Message-ID: In article: peter neville gurnell writes: > I understand that Carriers such as Quantas, Cathay and Eva > use cruise relief non endorsed pilots who demonstrate emergency descent > and a few other items but no T/O or landing. Comment from Tim Bull, only partly qualified as I am only an ETOPS B757 driver. I have no doubt that a full endorsement (type rating in UK language) is necessary for cruise pilots. With full training including engine out, approaches and landings comes that essential ingredient CONFIDENCE, which is difficult to acquire in these days of young pilots entering the airline environment for the first time. -- Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Surendra Ratwatte Subject: Re: Airbus A3XX---vapor plane? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Emirates Airlines Dubai Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:51 Message-ID: C. Marin Faure wrote: > > In article , Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk > wrote: > > According the the "unofficial" Airbus Web page which is actually > maintained by someone else but is quite good, the name of Airbus' new > transporter is "Beluga." > The Beluga is a converted A300-600, it came to Dubai last year and I had a good look. Huge but very ugly. More interesting is that the rumored A 350, 747 competitor, is to be launched soon. A friend in Airbus confirmed it, saying they "had no choice, because Boeing makes such a profit on the 747 that they can sell the 777 at a loss." Will this be AI's Tristar? From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:51 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > The 747 did grow out of a proposal for > what became the C5 Galaxy, and putting the cockpit above the main deck > was done with cargo in mind, but the 747 and MD-11 were both designed > mainly as passenger aircraft, with suitability for cargo a secondary > consideration. According to the folks in our (Boeing's) "history" department, the 747 was, in fact, designed with cargo as a primary consideration. Juan Tripp of Pan Am, and probably others, felt at the time that the ulitmate future of passenger transportation lay in the upcoming SSTs. However, he wanted a fast flagship for Pan Am, one which could carry more passengers than the existing airplanes, and he wanted it sooner than the SSTs would be available. He envisioned the 747 as a "stopgap" which would provide him with a big, fast plane to meet his immediate needs, and then be converted to cargo service when the SST came on line. So, in fact, the design of the 747 was really dictated by it's anticipated future service which was to be as a freighter. That's why it was given a raised cockpit- there would have been no reason to do so if the plane was intended for passenger service only. Of course, the SST plans fizzled, and the 747 went on to becoming the excellent passenger plane it still is, although it does even better as a freighter. Incidentally, the Boeing SST, for which a full-size mockup was constructed, would have been almost as large as the 747 (not in body diameter, but in length and wingspan. It would have been much larger than the Concorde, which is actually a fairly small plane by today's standards. There used to be a full-size painted profile of the Boeing SST on the north wall of the Developmental Center high-bay building on Boeing Field. When I joined the company in 1979, the mockup was long gone, and the profile had been painted over. But as the brown paint faded, the profile would begin to "ghost" through. I remember being very impressed by its size. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rching@saclink1.csus.edu (Russell K Ching) Subject: Re: md-11ER Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: California State University Sacramento Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:51 Message-ID: Bong (sabejo@pcislab.pom.devry.edu) wrote: : Also, will someone tell how many thousand of pounds of fuel will the : md-11 consume in an hour and will it be posible to to fly 6500 nm : and carry a 80000 lbs. of payload? In this week's AW&ST, an article about World Airway's acquistion of two MD-11ERs lists its range as 7200 nm. The GTOW is 630,000 lbs. (nothing said about the payload). It also states that it "includes a removable auxilary fuel tank in the cargo compartment which carries 3,000 gal. of fuel." On a side note, MD is "studying tow additional trijet derivatives, a stretch and long-range version. The LR model would have a design range of 8,500 nau. mi., while the stretch wold accommodate 375 passengers in a typical interior layout. The stretch would have a modified wing for improved aerodynamic performance and upgraded engines to provide a range of about 7,000 nau. mi." Does this mean MD is still a viable player? Russ From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:51 Message-ID: According to the then-current Jane's All the World's Aircraft, the KC-135 prototypes were being built when Boeing decided to offer an airliner version. They, Boeing, had to get permission from the USAF to use the KC-135 R&D rather than develop the 707 completely from scratch (which would, of course, be impossible--the genie was out of the bottle, after all). The USAF also had to grant permission for Boeing to set up the 707 production line, as it competed with the KC-135 line for skilled workers. I verified this in contemporaneous Flight International articles. (Fortunately, Dryden has an extensive collection of past issues and editions of these, making it very simple.) The only significant difference between the two airframes is the fuselage shape; the KC-135 has a circular cross section, while the 707 has a bi-lobar cross section, with the floor at the intersection of the two circular lobes. The 707 fuselage was designed to give passengers shoulder room, something fuel tanks don't require, and more baggage space. Thus, the 707 is, in fact, a KC-135 derivative, rather than the reverse, although the reverse is very commonly believed. In addition, the 747 is rather vaguely based on the Boeing entry into the competition that resulted in the C-5 buy. The USAF funded the initial design work for the various paper planes, of course. However, there's not a lot of the original remaining in the 747, but they did do the general calculations for sizing, etc. However, I would not really say that the 747 is a derivative of this paper plane, at all, as so little of the latter survived in the former. -- 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 Tue Apr 9 14:22:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: Re: Subsidies... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PREST, University of Manchester Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:52 Message-ID: On 30 Mar 96 16:01:11 , David Lednicer wrote: > Now, Airbus was set up with loans from the French and German >governments that were written off as they came due (Aviation Week and >Space Technology had articles on the write-offs, as they happened). The British government also contributed about stlg100 million as a 'back-payment' towards the A300 and A310 when British Aerospace re-joined Airbus in 1979. >Additionally, launch costs of the A300, A310 and A320 were also financed >by the same governments, plus Britain, in the case of the A320. To my knowledge, they also financed, at least partly, the development of the A330/340 family, though I don't know the details. >Hawker >Siddley, after ammalgamation into British Aerospace, was government owned, The British aircraft industry (including British Aerospace and Shorts) was only briefly publicly-owned from 1979. British Aerospace's was one of the early privatisations carried out by Mrs. Thatcher's Conservative governments in the early to mid-1980s. >but now is privately held. I think the German partner, MBB, now Daimler >Benz Aerospace, has always been private sector. I am guessing that CASA, >the Spanish partner, is government owned, but I could be wrong on this one. Current ownership status and share participation of Airbus Industrie partners: (best viewed using fixed-width fonts ;) Company Country Share (%) Ownership ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Aerospatiale France 37.9 Public British Aerospace United Kingdom 20.0 Private CASA Spain 4.2 Public Deutsche Airbus Germany 37.9 Private In addition, Fokker was/is (I don't know what's going to happen to its participation in Airbus after the bankrupcy petition) and the Belgian consortium BelAirbus (SABCA and SONACA) is an Airbus 'associate member'. Im not sure exactly what the legal relationship between Airbus and an associate member is. Fokker's holding company was until recently majority owned by Daimler Benz Aerospace (which also owns Deutsche Airbus), with a minority participation (and lots of cheap "loans") by the Dutch government. SABCA is majority (51%) owned by Dassault of France (Fokker own(s/ed) a 42% share), while the regional government of Wallonia (southern Belgium) holds a majority (90%) stake in SONACA. > On the issue of government funding for technology development - >yes, NASA does fund this and support this, but so does ONERA in France, >DFVLR (now DLR) in Germany, RAE (now DRA) in Britain, NLR in the >Netherlands, etc. True, and it would be interesting to see what the overall (civil and defence) aeronautical research budgets add up to on either side of the Atlantic. I'll try to collect this data and publish it in this group. Alternatively, if anyone has the figures at hand, you could save me some work. ;) >Overall, this happens everywhere. ONERA, for example, >exists largely to support Aerospatiale. Hmmm... I'll put this last statement down to literary licence. ;) ONERA is heavily involved in military aviation, and the principal military aircraft firm in France is, and has been for a long time, Dassault. Aerospatiale also has its own R&D centre near Paris. > Military production has helped support airliner development, as >mentioned already. However, this is not just an American phenomona. The >French and British threw incredible amounts of money at military aircraft >programs in the late 1940s and 50s. The Germans did too, but because of >postwar limitations, didn't get started until later. In fact, a lot of this >money came from the US, via NATO. The USAF owns quite a few Dassault >Mysteres, for example, because they actually paid for them (this is how >several have ended up in museums in the UK)! True, but the European NATO countries have bought many more US aircraft than the other way around. The German aerospace industry's technical capability was re-built largely through licence production of US military aircraft (F-104, F-4), for example. There are many dozens of F-16s (and even a few F/A-18s) flying for European air forces, not to mention the C-130. The Italians are still flying and crashing ;) the F-104, which doesn't do anything for the morale of their pilots. The so-called 'two-way' street (in NATO procurement parlance) across the Atlantic has massively favoured US contractors. Only the Brits, who have an important stake in the T-45 Goshawk and AV-8 Harrier programmes, have anything to feel good about. There are also a few Italian G-222 flying for the US ANG, if I remember correctly, thought I don't know their US designation (C-???). > My conclusion? Airliner manufacturing is a prestigous, crown jewel >that many countries desire to have. However, the cost of entry is >enormous. The US, buoyed by WW2 manufacturing expansion, was strong >enough to enter in the 1950s, funded by company internal money. However, >the Europeans, were not in as strong a position, and also were strongly >influenced by socialist philosphies of government control of major >industries. Because of this, the Europeans have developed a tradition of >government funding for their companies. However, this will come to roost >eventually, when the governments find that they have less and less to >sink into an enterprise that is still not producing healthy returns. >Throwing money at industries just to produce jobs is a loosing >propositon, in the long run. I'm with you on that one. But remember that most *current* European governments have a much more liberal (in the sense that Hayek was a liberal; I don't mean they're pinkos ;) attitude towards their aircraft industries, largely because they are experiencing all sorts of budgetary problems trying to meet the EMU convergence criteria. Also, the French government is, at least publicly, committed to Aerospatiale's privatisation. I wouldn't be surprised if either of the only other two significant, publicly-owned aircraft firms in Western Europe, the Spanish firm CASA and Alenia of Italy, were slated for privatisation some time soon. The European governments simply no longer have the public money available to fund these firms along with everything else (unemployment and social security, for example, which are after all much worthier causes than an overgrown industrial behemoth). Best Regards, -- Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk [featuring frames] Short History of Airbus available on the Web at: From kls Tue Apr 9 14:22:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: Re: Subsidies... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PREST, University of Manchester Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Date: 09 Apr 96 14:22:52 Message-ID: Further to my previous message, in which I proposed to get data on the aeronautical research budgets in the USA and in Europe, I have published the available data on the Web. The URL is: It isn't complete yet. I'll add to it as and when I find data or some kind s.a.a readers send it to me. ;) Cheers, A. -- Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Short History of Airbus available on the Web at: From kls Wed Apr 10 02:17:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 10 Apr 96 02:17:40 Message-ID: In article , FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) wrote: >: The upper deck door on the -300 and -400 is hinged at the top and >: swings up, as opposed to swinging out and to the side as on the main >: deck doors, or pulling up and into the fuselage like on a DC-10. I > >No, that is on the L-1011. DC-10 (and MD-11, as well as Airbus) doors, >swing out and to the side, but maintain their orientation with respect to >the fuselage, while Boeing doors rotate. No, DC-10 doors (like the 767) are motorized and do, as the first poster said, pull up into the fuselage wall. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Wed Apr 10 02:17:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@i1.net (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: Jetstream out of favor? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet 1st, Inc. Date: 10 Apr 96 02:17:42 Message-ID: In article , astracon@aol.com (Astracon) wrote: >Is there a technical reason why so many (41 to be precise) BAe Jetstreams >are now parked in the desert at Kingman, AZ or is the type being replaced >with more fuel efficent technology/higher seating capacity? Trans World Express has been replacing some of their Jetstream 31's with the larger capacity Jetstream 41, and eventually will have all -41's. Steven -- Steven G. Thomson Arnold, Missouri, USA From kls Wed Apr 10 02:17:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jon Ward Subject: British Airways B777 incident Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The End at Infinity Reply-To: Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk Date: 10 Apr 96 02:17:42 Message-ID: I have heard rumours about an incident which caused a British Airways B777 climbing out of Paris to drop severely, causing injury to a steward's head from the ceiling of the plane. The person who told me this said that the collison avoidance system was a possible cause. Has anybody else heard anything about this, and if so, do they have any more information? 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 Apr 10 02:17:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gerhard@onramp.net Subject: Continental DC-9 Gearup Landing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: On-Ramp; Individual Internet Connections; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA Date: 10 Apr 96 02:17:43 Message-ID: About a month ago a Continental DC-9 made a gear up landing in Houston. Does anyone have any information on what went on here? Dave From kls Wed Apr 10 02:17:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@i1.net (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Current Role of T-43A/737 in USAF? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc. Date: 10 Apr 96 02:17:43 Message-ID: I was surprised to find that the military flight carrying over 30 VIP's, that crashed on approach to Dubrovnic last week was a T-43A. I was in one of these airplanes about 8 years ago, and they were navigation trainers. They had most of the cabin windows plugged, and the cabin was filling with training stations for navigators. They were based in California, and spent most of their time flying back and forth to Hawaii, training navigators in all phases, including celestial. There were few passenger seats. Has the military re-configured thes aircraft for a transport role, with the introduction of GPS navigation? -- Steven G. Thomson Arnold, Missouri, USA From kls Wed Apr 10 02:17:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Current Role of T-43A/737 in USAF? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 10 Apr 96 02:17:43 Message-ID: >I was surprised to find that the military flight carrying over 30 >VIP's, that crashed on approach to Dubrovnic last week was a T-43A. The more recent reports place the fatalaties at 33 -- six crew and 27 passengers. >Has the military re-configured thes aircraft for a transport role, >with the introduction of GPS navigation? I don't know if GPS or some other factor is the reason, but yes, some of the T-43A aircraft have been converted to other roles. The one which crashed was a CT-43A, i.e., modified into a transport role. It reportedly had a forward cabin that was reasonably luxurious, a bunch of navigational equipment in the middle, and a cramped aft cabin which sounded a lot like a few rows of a more typical 737's economy cabin. BTW, the accident aircraft was 73-1149 (msn 20696, line number 347), which first flew on March 27, 1974, and was delivered to the US Air Force several weeks later, on April 11. -- 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 Apr 10 02:17:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ztomcich@mason2.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) Subject: Does a 747 actually have a drop ceiling? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Date: 10 Apr 96 02:17:43 Message-ID: I was unfortunate enough to see the movie 'executive decision' last week with a friend. It was a movie worthy of a mystery science theatre review. But it brings up a few questions: Does a 747 really have a drop ceiling above the passenger cabin? Is this mostly open space like the movie suggests? I personally don't belive it is, but wanted to ask someone who might actually know this. I appriciate your help. -- Ziggy From kls Wed Apr 10 02:17:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ztomcich@mason2.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) Subject: Automatic disaster beacons??? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Date: 10 Apr 96 02:17:43 Message-ID: I just saw the movie 'Alive' yesterday and was horrified that at the primative use of search plane to try to visible find the airplane wreck. Aren't planes equiped with automatic disaster radio beacons which will transmit in the event of an emergancy? Since when were these implemented if they exist, and if they don't exist, why not? How expensive could a small radio in a crash container cost? If an airplane does indeed crash, what it used to find its position? Is there any possibility of 'alive' reoccuring? -- Ziggy Last of the Zigatarian Zigmeisters Royal member of the Zigtorian Ziggerauts From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:34 Message-ID: > The only significant difference between the two airframes is the > fuselage shape; the KC-135 has a circular cross section, while the 707 > has a bi-lobar cross section, with the floor at the intersection of > the two circular lobes. The 707 fuselage was designed to give > passengers shoulder room, something fuel tanks don't require, and more > baggage space. > Actually, there are some other differences: 1) The C-135 series has a crew entry door on the lower left fuselage side that the 707 series doesn't have. 2) The Aluminum alloys used in the construction of the 707s is very different than that used on the C-135s (I can't remember the alloy numbers). 3) Only the 707-120's wing planform is the same as the C-135's. The 720s have an inboard glove, resulting in a root chord extension at the leading edge and the 707-320s have the Yehudi, which adds root chord at the trailing edge. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chris Jardine Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Wood County Telephone Company Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:35 Message-ID: In Article, write: > According to the then-current Jane's All the World's Aircraft, the > KC-135 prototypes were being built when Boeing decided to offer an > airliner version. They, Boeing, had to get permission from the USAF > to use the KC-135 R&D rather than develop the 707 completely from > scratch ... > Thus, the 707 is, in fact, a KC-135 derivative, rather than the > reverse, although the reverse is very commonly believed. If you go even further back you will notice that both the KC-135 and 707 were based on the DASH 80 in which Boeing risked 1/4 of the company net worth on the bet that either commercial airlines or the military would like to buy a jet of the type they had. I will agree that they both are variations on the DASH 80, but, since Boeing had developed the basic airframe on their own the military should not have had much of a say in whether they could build the 707. As a matter of fact, the military originally wanted the McDonnell Douglas aircraft that would be similar to the DC-8 (the designation escapes me). The original order for the KC-135 was only for a few aircraft in order to help the military out until MD could produce it's competition. Most of this comes from a series that aired on The Discovery Channel a few years back. Since they produced that segment with the help of Boeing and such people as Tex Johnston (I hope I spelled his name right) who was the test pilot for the DASH 80 project. Chris Jardine cjardine@wctc.net From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:36 Message-ID: In article , Filip De Vos writes >Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: >: >My friend maintains that the upper deck doors are designed to be used as >: >emergency exits only and could not be easily modified for routine use. He >: >said that the slide housing blocks the entrance. I knew this was true on >: >the -100 and -200 but are the -300 and -400 the same? > >: The -100 and -200 don't have an upper deck door, except for the small > >Yes, it has, but only at one side. On VIP flights with 747F and C's, the >passengers board through this door. And how do you think the crew gets in >the plane? The -300 and -400 have two doors halfway the upper deck. Filip; I fly 747 100's and 200's. Our 747's have two doors on the Upper Deck, not one. And they are only used (by my airline, at least) as emergency escape doors. As crew, we enter the aircraft like all the passengers do - by the main deck door. > DC-10 (and MD-11, as well as Airbus) doors, >swing out and to the side, but maintain their orientation with respect to >the fuselage, while Boeing doors rotate. Before starting to fly 747's in 1988, I spent 4 years flying dc-10-30 aircraft for British Caledonian. *ALL* DC-10 main entry doors doors work by coming inwards a small amount, and then sliding up into the roof area. I don't know where you got your idea about DC-10 doors swinging out, but it isn't correct. And Boeing doors definately don't rotate (propellers and wheels rotate), but rather they swing out and to the side, but maintain their orientation with respect to the fuselage side. Are you sure you are on the correct Newsgroup? -- Pete Finlay in the South of England pete@meads.demon.co.uk paf3@student.open.ac.uk Boeing 747 Senior Flight Engineer From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: $-1 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:36 Message-ID: >>On VIP flights with 747F and C's ... >I fly 747 100's and 200's. Our 747's have two doors on the Upper Deck, >not one. And they are only used (by my airline, at least) as emergency >escape doors. As crew, we enter the aircraft like all the passengers do >- by the main deck door. Note that he was talking about the freighter and combi versions. The loading procedures are rather different, even though it may not seem like it when flying steerage. (Obviously we're talking about a combi that's operating in all-cargo configuration here.) Does your airline have any all-cargo 747s, and if so, how do the pilots board them since it's obviously not like all the passengers? -- 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 Apr 11 09:58:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Callisto Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Corinthian Internet Services P/L, Sydney, Australia. Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:36 Message-ID: >The 747-100 and 200 have 2 doors on the upper deck just aft of the flight deck >These are EMERGENCY exits only. >Next time you see a -200 or -100 look for the outline of the door just aft of >the flight deck, one on either side, very small doors. You're mistaken. Next time you see a series -100 or -200, have a closer look. There is one door on the starboard (right) side only. No left side emergency door. There is also a flight deck crew escape hatch above the cockpit. From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: S80 Ground Checks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ISFSI Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:36 Message-ID: Dave Lawson <71202.1577@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > >The fact that they are still doing it is likely due to one of the >following reasons: >1. The ground crew does it as a matter of habit, since they have >been doing it since early 1992 (per the FAA AD). >2. The system was inoperative due to a fault. > How about not all of AA's large fleet of MD-80s having been modified? I don't know if this is true--but I certain see lots of manual wing checking on this fleet, even on warm days at ABQ, due to the fact that the ice often forms *after* landing. We waited for deicing on one of these aircraft at DFW one warm evening, only to have the ice melt off of the wings as we moved forward in the deicing queue. From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Does a 747 actually have a drop ceiling? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:36 Message-ID: In article , ztomcich@mason2.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) wrote: > I was unfortunate enough to see the movie 'executive decision' last week > with a friend. It was a movie worthy of a mystery science theatre > review. But it brings up a few questions: > > Does a 747 really have a drop ceiling above the passenger cabin? Is this > mostly open space like the movie suggests? I personally don't belive it > is, but wanted to ask someone who might actually know this. I appriciate > your help. Virtually all commercial jetliners have what you call a "drop ceiling." The space between the cabin ceiling panels and the actual fuselage panels is quite crowded, having air ducts, air filters, fans and motors, water pipes, electrical harnesses, in some cases control cable and hydraulic lines, plus all the structural components to support all this stuff. There IS a lot of empty space up there, but it's not in large, continuous sections. I haven't seen the movie you're talking about, but having done some filming in the overhead of a 777 recently, I can tell you there's not much room to crawl around. You can remove overhead panels and stow bins and get up into the overhead on a ladder to get at something like a fan motor to change it, but crawling lengthwise through the plane in the overhead would be just about impossible. In addition, the ceiling panels and structural components are very lightweight, and are not designed to support the full weight of an average man or woman. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: gt1086c@prism.gatech.edu (Gregory Glockner) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:37 Message-ID: nagarwal@neptune.cs.uml.edu (Niraj Agarwalla) writes: >Delta will probably put in an order for the 777 in a year or two, in order >to replace it's remaining L-1011s. Probably use the plane on European, >trans-continental, and high-density routes like New England - Florida. IMHO, the 777 doesn't make sense for Delta because at Delta's home in Atlanta, concourses T, 1, and 2 are too close together to allow 777s to taxi without disrupting other aircraft movements. For a 777 to taxi to a gate at concourses T, 1, or 2, no other planes can pass. The 777 might make sense for DL international operations, though, since there is more turnaround space at the international terminal (5). >American Airlines will, if they order it, probably use the 777 on it's trans- >-continental routes (American Airlines is one of the few airlines still using >wide-bodies on these routes) Wrong on both counts. If you mean "transcontinental" as flights to LAX, SEA, SFO out of EWR, IAD, JFK, then you are wrong because most of these flights use 767 or DC-10 widebodies. If you mean "transcontinental" as flights to the west coast out of DFW or ORD, you are wrong again since American uses primarily narrowbody MD-80 and 757 for these routes. As a matter of fact, UA uses more widebodies to the west coast out of ORD than does AA. Furthermore, DL uses more widebodies domestically (primarily smaller ones such as 767s and L1011s) than other U.S. airlines. I have often found it interesting that most of the major airlines have moved to greater frequency with smaller aircraft, yet Delta uses widebodies for a bunch of 90 minute flights out of Atlanta (c.f. ORD, MCO, FLL, PBI). -- 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 Thu Apr 11 09:58:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:37 Message-ID: >IMHO, the 777 doesn't make sense for Delta because at Delta's home in >Atlanta, concourses T, 1, and 2 are too close together to allow 777s >to taxi without disrupting other aircraft movements. Interesting ... might Delta be the first buyer of the folding wingtip option? 8-) >>American Airlines will, if they order it, probably use the 777 on it's trans- >>-continental routes (American Airlines is one of the few airlines still using >>wide-bodies on these routes) >If you mean "transcontinental" as flights to LAX, SEA, SFO out of >EWR, IAD, JFK, then you are wrong because most of these flights use >767 or DC-10 widebodies. Several years ago AA put three cabin aircraft (specially configured DC-10-10s plus standard international DC-10s and 767s) on all JFK-LAX flights. UA matched with four dedicated 767-200s plus an international 767. They've escalated to having the three-cabin widebodies on all of their JFK-LAX/SFO flights, AA still a mix of DC-10s and 767s while UA is all 767. This is a *very* service-competetive market. On some of those other routes, UA uses the 757 pretty heavily. All of the SFO-BOS are 757s, at least the majority of the SFO/LAX-EWR flights and a good number of SFO/LAX-IAD are 757s too, though a pair of feeders for the IAD Atlantic hub operate with big equipment -- a few months ago, LAX was a 767 and 777 while SFO has usually been a pair of 747s. Right now the SFO-IAD feeders are a 747 and 757. AA can't have that many widebody flights on these routes because they don't have the equipment. I suspect the bulk of their transcon flights use 757s, like UA. AA is down to only 23 DC-10s (UA is now ahead with 37 in service, or 36 if the April retirement has happened already). The A300s rarely, if ever, make it to the west coast. They do use 767s on domestic flights out of SFO (and I imagine LAX) other than to JFK, but there are also plenty of 757s, and most of the 767s are busy flying international routes. >As a matter of fact, UA uses more widebodies to the west coast out of >ORD than does AA. UA does fly big stuff ORD-SFO at peak times, but a lot of flights are 757s with an occasional A320 and/or 727 flight. For a while, ORD-LAX was almost entirely 757 and A320 on UA. For ORD-SFO/LAX, I wouldn't bet too heavily that UA has more widebodies than AA over the whole day, though with one or more 747s UA may have more capacity on wide- bodies. >Furthermore, DL uses more widebodies domestically (primarily smaller >ones such as 767s and L1011s) than other U.S. airlines. I've always thought it interesting that DL alone purchased the 767-300 extensively for domestic flights. AA and UA both use 767 domestically but other than special configs for JFK-LAX/SFO, they're international aircraft which wander onto the domestic system. I don't know if TW's 767-300s ever show up on domestic routes; their -200s do though I think they're also basically international aircraft. BTW, why do you call an L-1011 a "smaller" widebody? It's the same size as the DC-10s that are the biggest of AA's domestic fleet. -- 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 Apr 11 09:58:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rick Hughes Subject: Re: Cruise Relief Pilots Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: iiNet Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:37 Message-ID: Henry Law wrote: > > In article: peter neville > gurnell writes: > > I understand that Carriers such as Quantas, Cathay and Eva > > use cruise relief non endorsed pilots who demonstrate emergency > > descent and a few other items but no T/O or landing. > > Comment from Tim Bull, only partly qualified as I am only an ETOPS B757 > driver. I have no doubt that a full endorsement (type rating in UK > language) is necessary for cruise pilots. With full training including > engine out, approaches and landings comes that essential ingredient > CONFIDENCE, which is difficult to acquire in these days of young pilots > entering the airline environment for the first time. Not correct ... Cathay use Second Officers who do NOT have a full endorsement on type, but have what is known as a P2X rating. This allows them to sit in the right seat to conduct relief operations in the cruise with a Relief Commander in the left seat. This arrangement is used on 747-400 and A340 ULH sectors with the P2X rated pilot used as the fourth crew member with 3 other P1 rated pilots operating. They have, however, completed a full groundschool conversion/simulator program and will have done numerous approaches to a landing in the sim. The first poster was correct in saying they will not have been in the seat for T/O or landing in the aircraft i.e: base training etc. I understand this IS being used with other carriers, but cannot comment with authority on that angle. Rick Hughes rmhughes@iinet.net.au From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sbroon@aol.com (SBroon) Subject: Re: Continental DC-9 Gearup Landing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: sbroon@aol.com (SBroon) Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:37 Message-ID: Human Error..... From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Why was the Spruce Goose moved and where is it now ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:37 Message-ID: In klaasjan@euronet.nl (K._Eits) writes: > >Any suggestions ? >Thanks very much for your attentention ! > I believe the HK-1 is still owned by an aviation club. It apparently did not pay as a tourist attraction in SoCalif, so its possession and care was turned over to Evergreen Airlines in McMinnville, Oregon, about 40 miles southwest of Portland. The fuselage and wings have been more or less out in the elements, save for some plastic wrap. It looks like they are gradually building 'houses' to cover its major pieces where they sit. It is planned to be the centerpiece of a WWII aircraft museum. Those plans are seemingly at a crawl for reasons both personal and financial. RD From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Why was the Spruce Goose moved and where is it now ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:38 Message-ID: The Spruce Goose (i.e. Howard Hughes incredible flying boat) was moved from the Hughes hanger to a special facility along side the Quenn Mary in the '80s. The builing was large enough to hold the entire aircraft. Fire laws and the nature of the aircraft material (wood) precluded extensive viewing of the aircraft and the attraction soon lost its ability to drar paying customers. The attraction was closed, and the aircraft sold to Evergreen International (McMinville OR). It has been disessembled (cut-up?) and moved there with tentative plans to place it (or parts of it?) into a museum. The building remains in Long Beach CA currently unoccupied. Brian From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: James Buongiovanni Subject: Re: Why was the Spruce Goose moved and where is it now ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Good John's Shaperite Concepts Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:38 Message-ID: The Spruce Goose was purchased by Del Smith the owner and CEO of Evergreen International Airlines in Mcminnville Or. He owns various vintage airplanes including a Ford tri motor. The company it self was in financial problems a few years ago, but am unsure if that is the case today. Jim From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jeromed@goodnet.com (Jerome Dawson) Subject: Re: Why was the Spruce Goose moved and where is it now ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: GoodNet Reply-To: jeromed@goodnet.com Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:38 Message-ID: In article , faurecm@halcyon.com says... >The Spruce Goose is in pieces in storage in Oregon. The museum that >bought it hopes to build a proper display facility and re-assemble the >airplane, but they are having trouble raising money, among other things. Okay, so what can we do about it? This sounds like a great tradgedy just waiting to happen. Regards, Jerome Dawson From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Curious <100115.261@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Jet engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:38 Message-ID: Do big fanjets work by Newton's second law or like giant propellers? From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: Airbus launch Web site. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PREST, University of Manchester Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:38 Message-ID: I haven't seen any annoucements on either of the two groups this message is going to, s.a.a and m.t.a-i, so I'd just like to point out that Airbus seems to be about to launch a Web site (but then, messages usually take about a week to get to me thanks to the wonderful newsfeed provided to the UK academic community, so this may already be common knowledge). The URL is (surprise, surprise!) and at the moment they have very cleverly put a huge jpg on the front page (just to annoy all the modem users out there). It depicts an A340 in flight and says "Coming Soon". I hope they do and that they publish press releases, financial info, and their market forecasts -- I wish Boeing also published this latter item on the Web; hi Martin, any chance you could pull a few strings and arrange this? ;). Best Regards, A. -- Alain Deckers Tel: +44 (0)161 275 5943 PREST, The Universiy of Manchester Fax: +44 (0)161 273 1123 Manchester M13 9PL Email: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk United Kingdom From kls Thu Apr 11 09:58:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tjk Subject: Canadair Regional Jet Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Miami University Date: 11 Apr 96 09:58:38 Message-ID: I am a full-time college student with a love for aviation, so last summer during my break I worked for Comair in Cincinnati. While there I worked around and flew on the Canadair Regional jet many times and came to really like the aircraft. I was wondering how pilots feel about the aircraft. Is it easy to fly? Any quirks or problems? How does it fly compared to larger jet aircraft? Thanks, Tim From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: A319 certified Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: worldbank Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:23 Message-ID: Airbus' A319 received its type certification from the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) on April 10. Certification is for the version equipped with CFM56-5Bs. Versions powered by CFM56-5As, and V2500-A5s are expected to be certified later this year. The first A319 will be delivered to ILFC later this month, for operation by Swissair. Swissair will be the first airline to operate all 3 members of the A319/A320/A321 family. Lufthansa, Air Inter Europe, and Air Canada will also take delivery of A319s this year. The flight test program began with the A319's first flight on August 29, 1995. It involved two aircraft flying more than 500 hours and 250 missions. Since the A319 is a derivative, flight tests focused on in-flight performance, flying qualities, autopilot and other specific modifications of the A319. Stefano From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Koen.Moens@ping.be (Koen Moens) Subject: req inf on FAA standards on foreign security Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PING Belgium Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:23 Message-ID: Leuven, Belgium 12/4/1996 Hello, I'm looking for some detailled information and I hope somebody can help me. In September 1994 a Belgian newspaper reported that the FAA had forbidden a number of foreign air carriers to further use USA territory because the aircraft these companies were operating did not meet safety criteria. I believe the program is called "assessment of foreign compliance with international safety standards". As regional small Belgian airports receive a lot of flights (freight mostly) from many largely unknown foreign-based air companies, I am quite concerned about the dangerous safety situation for the airports and for the people living around them. 1) Can anybody send me a list with the names of all the countries (and if possible companies) suspended by the FAA under this program since september 1994? (The FAA home-page which I have consulted only goes back till March 31st, 1995) 2) I would also appreciate hints of interesting regulations and quality criteria in force specifically with regard to safety (and noise, kerosene pollution, ...), and where I can find them (e.g. on the Internet, ..). I would be grateful for any other information you would consider relevant. Thank you in advance, Koen Moens F. Lintstraat 23, 3000 Leuven BELGIUM fax: ++32.16.29.23.83 e-m@il: Koen.Moens@ping.be From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cpeters Subject: Re: Does a 747 actually have a drop ceiling? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: North Bay Network, Inc. news server - not responsible for content Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:24 Message-ID: > Does a 747 really have a drop ceiling above the passenger cabin? Is >this mostly open space like the movie suggests?------------ Yes, it does have a drop ceiling. Among several things, above the ceiling runs a large ventilation duct lengthwise. Under the upper deck though, the ceiling is suspended from the upper deck flooring. All the wide bodies have a `drop' ceiling. Carl Peters From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:24 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >On some of those other routes, UA uses the 757 pretty heavily. All of >the SFO-BOS are 757s, at least the majority of the SFO/LAX-EWR flights >and a good number of SFO/LAX-IAD are 757s too, though a pair of feeders >for the IAD Atlantic hub operate with big equipment -- a few months >ago, LAX was a 767 and 777 while SFO has usually been a pair of 747s. >Right now the SFO-IAD feeders are a 747 and 757. Actually, a 747, a 763, and a 757. There are now 3 SFO-IAD flights out of SFO between 0800 and 0900 with three IAD-SFO between 1630 and 1800. >AA can't have that many widebody flights on these routes because they >don't have the equipment. I suspect the bulk of their transcon flights >use 757s, like UA. AA is down to only 23 DC-10s (UA is now ahead with >37 in service, or 36 if the April retirement has happened already). UA is down to 21 DC-10-10s (plus the 8 DC-10-30s) in service. Of the 23 not in service, some are retired while the rest are stored and will return as others are retired. >UA does fly big stuff ORD-SFO at peak times, but a lot of flights are >757s with an occasional A320 and/or 727 flight. No 727s anymore. Both ORD-SFO and ORD-LAX are "video equipped" only markets. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: b17864@vaxc.phx1.aro.allied.com Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AlliedSignal Engines, Phoenix, Az Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:25 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>My friend maintains that the upper deck doors are designed to be used as >>emergency exits only and could not be easily modified for routine use. He >>said that the slide housing blocks the entrance. I knew this was true on >>the -100 and -200 but are the -300 and -400 the same? > > The -100 and -200 don't have an upper deck door, except for the small > hatch above the cockpit. (I assume the same is true for the -400F > which does not have the long upper deck.) When United's first 747 landed at O'Hare, my dad took me out there to see it. The plane was sitting outside United's maintenance hanger and set up for an employee open house. There was a door just behind the flight deck that we left the aircraft from. Standing at the top of the stairs, I can remember being impressed on how high the upper deck was bove the ground. I didn't think that this was an emergency exit. Mark Johnston From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Walter E. Shepherd" Subject: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Aerospace Corporation Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:25 Message-ID: I have this unexplained love affair with flying boats... they were before my time, but I'd give my right arm to retrace the route of the China Clipper in a reasonable facsimile to a Martin 134. I've devoured most books on the subject and believe that the really great ones (Martin 134 and Boeing 314's) are all long gone. Strangely, I have overlooked the obvious... Empire Airways of the UK... until last nite on Discovery Channel. They broadcast a flight retracing the Route of the Empire Flying Boats from Cairo, down the Nile and along the East African coast to South Africa. Unfortunately they did it in a PBY Catalina (don't get me wrong... I admire the PBY... I used to work where they came off the line... I think they are the prettiest ugly airplane ever built... but that old war horse is just that). It is also unfortunate that that route is laced with civil wars... I'm not that desperate for a ride. Anyway I've two questions: 1. Are there any UK passenger flying boats still in airworthy condition? If so, where? 2. Has anyone ever attempted to build a replica flying boat for the purpose of revenue making specialty cruises? If so, what happened? Thanks to all who care about airplanes. From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: FT: Aerospatiale on Airbus Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concord World Travel Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:26 Message-ID: On 30 Mar 96 16:01:04 , Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) wrote: >Anyway, if all the major Airbus partners (France, Germany and the >United Kingdom) no longer seem worried about these issues, they must >obviously be satisfied that the advantages of incorporation outweigh >the benefits. > >That still leaves the most important question of all: why incorporate >at all? In my opinion, an important contributory factor in this has >been the long held belief of the German and UK governments that they >needed to impose some discipline on AI (read "on the French") to force >it into a realistic attitute towards its costs, and the two >governments' desire to limit their financial exposure to the >consortium. The current French government was bound to be more >receptive towards these arguments than its predecessors, and it was >perhaps a case of seizing the opportunity (remember, the French have >also recently announced a major rationalisation of their defence >industry -- civil aviation falls under the purview of the Direction >Generale de l'Armement (DGA) and the French have traditionally >considered civil aviation an adjunct to the defence industry). > One of the consequences of operating under the GIE structure is that any benefits accrue to the members (read BAe) - not the consortium. Thus Airbus cannot compete cost-wise with Boeing. Becoming a limited company will sort this out as well as giving Airbus access to the capital markets. I think that it's fair to say that what's suitable for French winegrowers is looking increasingly indefensible in a business as complex and as costly as aviation manufacturing and selling. I'm not sure that the German and UK governments are so involved. The big push towards restructuring Airbus has come from BAe which is doing rather nicely out of making wings, but does not want to be dragged under by its inefficient partners. -- Roger Chung-Wee 278 Wightman Road London N8 0LX Tel: +44(0)181-342 8400 Fax: +44(0)181-348 0822 *** Long-haul and Caribbean specialist *** From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:27 Message-ID: In a recent conversation with someone from Virgin Atlantic the gentleman referred to the airline's 747-200's as 747 Classics. This is a new term on me and I was wondering what its origin is and if it is used industry-wide? Steve From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:27 Message-ID: >In a recent conversation with someone from Virgin Atlantic the gentleman >referred to the airline's 747-200's as 747 Classics. I suspect this refers to any 747 model older than the -400, i.e., the ones with a flight engineer and real ("classic") gauges for all the pilots instead of the pretty computer-driven color screens of the -400. I've heard United pilots refer to the older 747s as "rope-starts," a somewhat less complimentary term! -- 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 Apr 12 02:11:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Hunnibell Subject: Re: Question re Long-haul aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Clan Hunnibell Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:27 Message-ID: Clyde Mitchell wrote: > For the purposes of a story that I am writing, I need to have a group of > people fly non-stop from Brazil to Bergen in Norway. [...] > I do not need a huge payload > capability: I only need to transport 8 or 9 people with very little baggage or > cargo. Cost is not a major consideration. > > Any suggestions as to the type of aircraft I could use? How about the new Gulfstream V (since cost is not a major consideration)? That aircraft flew first in December 1995 and is designed to carry 8 passengers and 4 crew 6,500 nm. The aircraft is small enough to go into Bergen. There is a description of the aircraft available from this page: http://www.onramp.net/~tekmate/hangars/hangar20.htm It's in the [Get Hangar Documentation] link and is zipped with the other 5 (long range business jet) aircraft listed. Good luck Mark Hunnibell markh@connix.com From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jimc@internorth.com (Jim Cameron) Subject: Re: Question re Long-haul aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet North Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:28 Message-ID: mitchell@mst.csiro.au (Clyde Mitchell) wrote: >For the purposes of a story that I am writing, I need to have a group of >people fly non-stop from Brazil to Bergen in Norway. The distance from >Brasilia to Bergen is 9603 km (6002 mi), or about the same as London to Hong >Kong. Clearly a 747 could do this, but I do not think it could land at >Bergen (Flesland), which can handle 737's etc. I could reduce the distance >to 8390 km (5244 mi) by flying out of Recife. I do not need a huge payload >capability: I only need to transport 8 or 9 people with very little baggage or >cargo. Cost is not a major consideration. >Any suggestions as to the type of aircraft I could use? The new Canadair Global Express From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) Subject: Re: Question re Long-haul aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Honeywell Technology Center Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:28 Message-ID: Here are the G-V specs. If your max number is not in Nautical Miles, it looks like this makes it. 6500nm is about 7150 miles, which meets your requirements. It is the "Rolls-Royce" of biz-jets. Ken === The G-V is the latest in a line of Gulfstreams going back to the turboprop Rolls-Royce Dart powered Grumman G-159 Gulfstream which first flew in August 1958. The newest member of the family took to the air for the first time not long before Christmas, 1995. As already mentioned, this plane is a stretched, ultra-long-range development of the G-IV. The 8' 2" fuselage stretch is not for the purpose of carrying more passengers - the extra space is taken up with such things as a crew rest area and shower facilities. These amenities are required to maintain a comfortable environment for what could be a flight duration of over 14 hours - covering 6,500 nm in that time. Apart from the extra length, the plane has a longer, redesigned wing and new Rolls-Royce BR710 turbofans. The cabin typically accomodates 8 with every imaginable convenience - including a fully equipped computer workstation with communications and fax facilities, a double bed and a conference/dining area.. not to mention two galleys. The only competition for the Gulfstream V is Canadairs Global Express which has not yet flown. Specifications Wing span: 93' 4", Length 96' 6", Height 24' 6". Weights: Operating Empty 46,800 lbs. Max take off 89,000 lbs Power: 2 x 14,680 lb. static thrust Rolls-Royce BR 710 turbofans. Cruise speeds: Max 510 knots, Normal 459 knots (Mach 0.8) at 41,000 feet. Range: Max with 4 crew and 8 passengers at normal cruise, with reserves - 6,500 nm. Initial climb rate 4,188 fpm. === 6,500 -- Ken Hoyme Staff Scientist Honeywell Technology Center 3660 Technology Drive Minneapolis, MN 55418 From kls Fri Apr 12 02:11:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jeckstei@rutcor.rutgers.edu (Jonathan Eckstein) Subject: Re: Question re Long-haul aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rutgers University Date: 12 Apr 96 02:11:28 Message-ID: In the 70's, SAS used to fly 747's through Bergen. I clearly remember flying a 747-200 JFK-Bergen, then a DC-9-40 Bergen-Oslo. I cannot remember whether the airport I made the transfer at was called Flesland. I do remember it had minimal ground facilities. -- JE From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: melrob@cts.com (Mel Roberts) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CTS Network Services Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:49 Message-ID: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) wrote: >In a recent conversation with someone from Virgin Atlantic the gentleman >referred to the airline's 747-200's as 747 Classics. This is a new term >on me and I was wondering what its origin is and if it is used >industry-wide? >Steve British Airways came up with this term. Their pilots were (and may still be?) divided into -400 series division and -200 series division. I presume they were looking for a term that would sound more market acceptable than 'old' 747 division for the -200 series group. Many of Virgin Atlantic's pilots are ex British Airways employees, they probably brought the term with them. From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Idaho State University Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:49 Message-ID: When the 747-400 came out, controllers started referring to the older 747s as "classics". This was at about the same time as Coca-Cola tried to split into 2 products, "New Coke" and "Coke Classic". The point was that the -400 looks different, so a controller could say "follow the company 747 classic, cleared for a visual approach" and be more sure that the pilots would follow the proper aircraft. I've always wondered why nobody took up the challenge and referred to the 747SP as a "747 Lite". Jim Wolper From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:49 Message-ID: In article , astracon@aol.com (Astracon) wrote: > In a recent conversation with someone from Virgin Atlantic the gentleman > referred to the airline's 747-200's as 747 Classics. This is a new term > on me and I was wondering what its origin is and if it is used > industry-wide? It's not a term I've heard at Boeing. I suspect it may be a take-off on the Range Rover Classic idea, as Virgin Atlantic is British. The Range Rover Classic was a name used toward the end of the original Range Rover's production run to delineate it from the "new model" Range Rover. Just a guess.... C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pandy@tcp.co.uk (Andrew Cameron) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Total Connectivity Providers - Internet access for the UK Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:50 Message-ID: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) wrote: >In a recent conversation with someone from Virgin Atlantic the gentleman >referred to the airline's 747-200's as 747 Classics. This is a new term >on me and I was wondering what its origin is and if it is used >industry-wide? >Steve This is a common UK originated term for pre -400 series 747s. I don't believe that there are any -300s on the UK register, but still a number of -100s as well as 200s. Andrew From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:50 Message-ID: : I've heard United pilots refer to the older 747s as "rope-starts," a : somewhat less complimentary term! Okay, Karl, so, what did they mean by "rope-starts"? :-) -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@MindSpring.com 11575 Laurel Lake Drive +1 770 552 0543 Roswell, GA 30075 U.S.A. From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:50 Message-ID: >: I've heard United pilots refer to the older 747s as "rope-starts," a >: somewhat less complimentary term! >Okay, Karl, so, what did they mean by "rope-starts"? :-) I suspect it would defy any attempt at a formal definition. Perhaps some story like a 747 "Classic" pilot got a new lawn mower with an electric starter, to replace his older rope-start model, then was talking to one of his buddies who flew one of the 747-400s. These kinds of terms often have an amusing story behind them ... in most cases probably several amusing stories! -- 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 Sat Apr 13 16:44:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: elkowitz@alumni.caltech.edu (Allan Elkowitz) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet Online Services Reply-To: elkowitz@gramercy.ios.com Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:50 Message-ID: gt1086c@prism.gatech.edu (Gregory Glockner) wrote: > I have often found it interesting >that most of the major airlines have moved to greater frequency with >smaller aircraft, yet Delta uses widebodies for a bunch of 90 minute >flights out of Atlanta (c.f. ORD, MCO, FLL, PBI). I inquired about this recently while on a short flight on an L1011 -? from Cincinnati to Boston one evening when the plane was nearly empty. I was told that the only reason such a large and empty plane was used for such a short flight was to position the aircraft in Boston for an 8:00 a.m. run to Florida when it would be expected to be full. Allan From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Does a 747 actually have a drop ceiling? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:50 Message-ID: In article , ztomcich@mason2.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) wrote: > I was unfortunate enough to see the movie 'executive decision' last week > with a friend. It was a movie worthy of a mystery science theatre > review. But it brings up a few questions: > Does a 747 really have a drop ceiling above the passenger cabin? Is this > mostly open space like the movie suggests? I personally don't belive it > is, but wanted to ask someone who might actually know this. I appriciate > your help. Haven't seen the movie, but I have seen a "drop ceiling" on a B747 used as storage for ... well let me explain. I was travelling with a college orchestra in 1984 on a tour to Europe, and we flew Virgin Atlantic. (It was just a couple of days after they started up, actually.) Naturally, no one in the orchestra wanted to check their musical instruments (the bulky ones like harps were specially cargoed), so there was a dearth of storage space in the overhead bins, etc. A flight attendant opened a door which swung down out of the ceiling in the aisle, and put some cellos or some such overhead - it was fairly sizable. The bin swung down like an attic ladder. I believe I was sitting in the section between the L/R2 and L/R3 doors at the time, but I'm not sure. Not having seen the movie, I am unable to comment on how the space was portrayed on film. As a side note, there is pretty good footage of not-usually-seen interior space on a B747 in the movie "Terminal Velocity". If you can ignore the plot and acting, it is educational. 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 Sat Apr 13 16:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tom Speer Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:51 Message-ID: Walter E. Shepherd wrote: > >... I've devoured > most books on the subject and believe that the really great ones (Martin > 134 and Boeing 314's) are all long gone. .... I believe that the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine had an article in the last year or two about a MARS flying boat that is doing fire service duty in the US. I think that would qualify as one of the great ones. TS From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:51 Message-ID: In article "Walter E. Shepherd" writes: > Anyway I've two questions: >1. Are there any UK passenger flying boats still in airworthy condition? >If so, where? > There is an airworthy Sandringham (converted Sunderland) at Kermit Weeks' museum in Polk City Fla. I know of two non-flying examples. One at Oakland Ca., and another in the Southampton (UK) museum. I believe both of these are Sandringhams also. regards Brian From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:51 Message-ID: The only airworthy example I know of is Kermit Weeks' Short Sunderland/Sandringham which he keeps at one of his two museums in Florida. This is the same airplane that was flying in the UK a few years ago. Steve From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Airbus launch Web site. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:51 Message-ID: In article , Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk wrote: > I haven't seen any annoucements on either of the two groups this > message is going to, s.a.a and m.t.a-i, so I'd just like to point out > that Airbus seems to be about to launch a Web site (but then, messages > usually take about a week to get to me thanks to the wonderful > newsfeed provided to the UK academic community, so this may already be > common knowledge). > > The URL is (surprise, surprise!) and at > the moment they have very cleverly put a huge jpg on the front page > (just to annoy all the modem users out there). It depicts an A340 in > flight and says "Coming Soon". I hope they do and that they publish > press releases, financial info, and their market forecasts -- I wish > Boeing also published this latter item on the Web; hi Martin, any > chance you could pull a few strings and arrange this? ;). There is also an unofficial Airbus Web site maintained by an individual in northern Europe (I forget the country). It has photos of all the planes, technical information, and all sorts of stuff. It's a very nice site. While Boeing occasionally makes general statements about how they see the market shaping up in the future, this is not a regular or formal occurance (at least not in public). The airline industry is extremely competitive, and Boeing will not do anything that could imply or instigate a situation that might give one customer an advantage over another. It is for this same reason that Boeing never announces an airplane sale itself. It is up to the customer airline when, where, and under what circumstances an airplane sale is announced. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Cruise Relief Pilots Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:51 Message-ID: In article , hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk wrote: >In article: peter neville >gurnell writes: >> I understand that Carriers such as Quantas, Cathay and Eva >> use cruise relief non endorsed pilots who demonstrate emergency >descent >> and a few other items but no T/O or landing. Perhaps you are referring to 2nd officers, who I think at Qantas are not senior enough to do take offs and landings, but often fly cruise for periods. I think second officers even relieve the flight engineers on older 747s. It is basically to train them, and secondly to relieve the senior crew I think. Simon Craig. -- simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:52 Message-ID: Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >>On VIP flights with 747F and C's ... : >I fly 747 100's and 200's. Our 747's have two doors on the Upper Deck, I did not know that, I thought all short-deck 747's had only one upper-deck door. : >not one. And they are only used (by my airline, at least) as emergency : >escape doors. As crew, we enter the aircraft like all the passengers do ^^^^^^^^^^ : >- by the main deck door. : Note that he was talking about the freighter and combi versions. The Not to pick a nit, but I should have said 'freighter and 'convertible' Martinair has two 747-200 Convertibles. I do not know whether the Combi's can carry cargo forward of the wing. The old Sabena 747 -100SL 's (I think they are being or have been replaced) cannot carry freight forward of the side cargo door. I suppose that when -100's and 200's get converted to cargo service the stairs are eliminated. That stand/airstair for the upper deck is real, though. It is used by carriers for VIP flights. -- Filip De Vos "Manned exploration initiatives will be difficult to afford when transporting a fidevos@eduserv.rug.ac.be single meal to the US space station will cost $15.000" Lt Col John R. London III From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "John O'Brien" Subject: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Inc. Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:52 Message-ID: As airliners are all beginning to look alike and are hard to distinguish from each other, at least in the air at a distance, I was wondering why some manufacturers still make T-Tailed aircraft and some don't. I know that in the late 70's the first designs of the 757 had a T-Tail but that this was later replaced by the normal fin and lower tail-plane. Also some more modern airliners have T-Tails, (Bae-146 or Avrojet, MD-80/MD-90), ATR 40, (I think thats what this prop-plane is called), Fokker-100. There doesn't seem to be an evolutionary pattern from say 50's to the 80's. The only disadvantage I ever heard about a T-Tail was that it was harder to recover such a plane from a stall. I find it difficult to distinguish at a glance an A330 from a 767 / 777, a 737-400 from an A320, an A310 from a 757 or TU-204. Will there ever be another T-Tailed airliner after the current ones become obsolete ? I know its all economics now but I liked the days when VC10s, Tridents, DC-8s,707s all looked distinctive and had... well a bit of character ! ========================================== Raum 28-577 GP NM TK3 SNI AG Otto-Hahn Ring 6 81397 Muenchen Tel.: 089-636 53918 FAX : 089-636 48303 e-mail : obrien@ironman.mch.sni.de From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ldrew@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (PETE) Subject: Re: Whys and Hows of Water Injection on Jet Engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of California, San Diego Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:52 Message-ID: >Although methyl or ethyl alcohol (or a mixture of one or both of these and >water) has been used in the past for injection to augment jet engine >thrust, water has a higher heat of evaporation, and is therefore the only >liquid generally used for thrust augmentation today. The effect upon >engine thrust depends upon the rate of water flow into the engine. > With all due respect to Mr. Wingedhoof, alcohol is still used in water injection systems for his opposing company's engine. The version of the Garrett TPE-331 that is installed in the common, but finally fading Fairchild Metro commuter airliner uses a water-meth mix. As much as 60 or 80% meth in fact! We use it all the time when hot and high, and it works beautifully well. Of course who wouldn't rather have gobs of extra power or massively flat-rated engines instead! Pete current Metro III pilot BS, Mech. Engineering former Twin Otter pilot (PT6) soon to be EMB120 Brasilia pilot (PW118A) ps. I love Pratt's PT6 and PW118A too! From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: Jet engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:52 Message-ID: In article , 100115.261@CompuServe.COM says... > >Do big fanjets work by Newton's second law or like giant propellers? > YES !! (OK: No jokes) about 70%-80% of the thrust is from the "fan" portion in cruise. This is thrust as opposed to the "tractor" or airscrew effect you may mean with propellers. But even a propeller is "acting" out Newton's 2nd law or the airplane would not move... Alan From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Jet engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:52 Message-ID: In article Curious <100115.261@CompuServe.COM> writes: > Do big fanjets work by Newton's second law or like giant propellers? Both fanjets and propellors work by Newton's second (and third) laws, among many others. :-) The main difference is that a fan has a theoretically more efficient airflow because of the presence of a boundary wall at the fan tip. However, there are other, more articulate and erudite aerodynamicists who may read this. If not, check with sci.aeronautics. 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 Sat Apr 13 16:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Darren Pardoe Subject: Re: Jet engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Reply-To: dpardoe@st-athan.demon.co.uk Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:52 Message-ID: On 11 Apr 96 09:58:38 , Curious <100115.261@CompuServe.COM> wrote: >Do big fanjets work by Newton's second law or like giant propellers? > Is this a trick question? Newton's second law relates net force and acceleration. A net force on an object will accelerate itthat is, change its velocity. The acceleration will be proportional to the magnitude of the force and in the same direction as the force. The proportionality constant is the mass, m, of the object. Newton's second law F=ma ( Force = Mass x Acceleration ) All aircraft are governed by this law, if they have jets or props. If it moves it is governed by Newton's second law of motion. Regards Daz -------------------------------------------------- Darren Pardoe dpardoe@st-athan.demon.co.uk South Glamorgan, Wales. "God," Einstein once said,"does not play dice with the world." From kls Sat Apr 13 16:44:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mlange@vmprofs.estec.esa.nl (Max O. Lange) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ESA ESTEC Date: 13 Apr 96 16:44:53 Message-ID: In article , tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) wrote: [...] > I have here in a copy of Janes, a photo (and little else) of > a small feederliner called a VFW-614, from West Germany. The > airplane in the photograph is wearing Luftwaffe clothing, but > it is clearly a small feederliner. > > There is a slightly swept wing, with two small fanjets mounted > on pylons ABOVE the wing. The wing is mounted low on the fuselage, > ala 737. The horizontal surfaces are mounted high on the fueslage > with more dihedral (also similar to a 737). Single vertical > empennage. > > >From the looks of it, it seats 35-40. It is shown in the "rare" > aircraft section of the book... next to Convair 990s, Bristol > Britannas, etc. Yeah- good old 614...funny thing: The company was actually named Fokker and (like its Dutch counterpart?) went broke just as this very nice aircraft had some market success... Anyway, it really is a small feeder liner though it was mainly used for VIP transport in the Luftwaffe. One, though, was converted by the DLR (German aerospace research establishment) to an all-electric everything simulator called ATTAS. One thing they use it for is laminar flow research, I think. I also seem to recall the YC14/YC15 programmes in the States used engines mounted above and before the wings to increase lift. From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: showie@uoguelph.ca (Steve Howie) Subject: Early flap retraction Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Guelph Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:01 Message-ID: I was on a Cdn. Airlines 737 flight from Halifax, Nova Scotia to St. John's Newfoundland a couple of years ago. When we took off, it was into a strong headwind, and the plane climbed at what seemed like an inordinately steep deck angle. I could have sworn I saw the flaps on the trailing edge of the wing fully retracting about 30 seconds or so into the climb, which seems very early indeed. Is this a normal occurence under such "favourable" take-off conditions? Would the extra lift afforded by the headwind make flap use less significant? Or were my eyes maybe playing tricks on me? -- Steve Howie Email: showie@uoguelph.ca NetNews and Listserv Admin. Phone: (519) 824-4120 x2556 Computing and Communications Svcs. Fax: (519) 763-6143 University of Guelph From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Nobody but me Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:01 Message-ID: In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: >In article , astracon@aol.com >(Astracon) wrote: > >> In a recent conversation with someone from Virgin Atlantic the gentleman >> referred to the airline's 747-200's as 747 Classics. >It's not a term I've heard at Boeing. Marin, Have you heard the 737-3/4/500 referred to as the 737 "Classic" in Puget Sound? That's what we are calling them here in Wichita. From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:02 Message-ID: On 11 Apr 96 09:58:35 , Chris Jardine said: C> In Article, C> write: > According to the then-current Jane's All the World's Aircraft, the > KC-135 prototypes were being built when Boeing decided to offer an > airliner version. They, Boeing, had to get permission from the USAF > to use the KC-135 R&D rather than develop the 707 completely from > scratch ... > Thus, the 707 is, in fact, a KC-135 derivative, rather than the > reverse, although the reverse is very commonly believed. C> If you go even further back you will notice that both the KC-135 C> and 707 were based on the DASH 80 in which Boeing risked 1/4 of the C> company net worth on the bet that either commercial airlines or the C> military would like to buy a jet of the type they had. I will agree C> that they both are variations on the DASH 80, but, since Boeing had C> developed the basic airframe on their own the military should not C> have had much of a say in whether they could build the 707. Are you sure it's the Dash 80? I thought the Dash 80 was what Douglas was certifying in the early '80s, when they broke the tailcone off with an FAA pilot flying, doing the runway work here at Edwards. They then dropped a crane on the other prototype when they tried to lift it after it went off the runway down at Yuma (blown tire, I think) shortly thereafter. Since the crane had broken its back, they wrote it off. The other one, which left its entire tail at the approach end while coming to rest at the center taxiway, was, as I recall, repaired and used for the rest of the certification. In any event, the then-current Jane's didn't mention any common predecessor. Nor did contemporaneous Flight Internationals. I'm not sufficiently informed about the history of commercial aircraft, except as they relate to NASA or military aircraft, to be able to do anything but repeat what reliable information I could find. Jane's was very explicit about the USAF permission being required, as this delayed the opening of the line. Knowing the government's willingness to assume ownership of technology and tooling developed with its money, I'm quite sure that the permissions were not pro forma. Am I the only one familiar with governmental contracting rules? If the government pays for it, either directly, as a deliverable, or indirectly, using resources the government has paid for, it's the government's. Thus, tooling, patented inventions, and so on that came out of the actual construction and testing of the KC-135 were the government's. It's this practical stuff, mostly the tooling, used in the actual construction that Boeing had to get permission for, not the paper airplane concepts. I also believe that Boeing had to guarantee that opening the 707 line would not impact the KC-135 schedules in any way. -- 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 Fri Apr 19 02:04:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:02 Message-ID: On 09 Apr 96 14:22:47 , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) said: R> Given how much slides flop around in the wind, I wouldn't be too R> keen to go down three stories in one. Having gone down an L-1011 slide in a hangar (initial practice for the evacuation demonstrations to the FAA), I wouldn't be too keen to go down any stories in one. Keep your hands out in front of you--your palms will thank you. Those slides are abrasive. R> The overhatch thing with the inertial reels is for the flight crew R> only. According to an article I read years ago in Callback, 747s had a knotted rope that could be tossed out one of the windows so that the cockpit crew could shinny down it. I read about this in an article that discussed the practice of taxiing on two engines to save fuel because of OPEC, so it was some time ago. -- 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 Fri Apr 19 02:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Automatic disaster beacons??? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:03 Message-ID: On 10 Apr 96 02:17:43 , ztomcich@mason2.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) said: Z> I just saw the movie 'Alive' yesterday and was horrified that at Z> the primative use of search plane to try to visible find the Z> airplane wreck. That's how you do it, particularly for VFR flights. Ask your local Civil Air Patrol or a SAR unit. A lot of times, the first thing that indicates a problem is that someone doesn't show up somewhere on time. Filing a flight plan with an accurate arrival time tends to speed up the process of realizing that something's happened, rather than waiting until starting time at work on Monday. Z> Aren't planes equiped with automatic disaster radio beacons which Z> will transmit in the event of an emergancy? Since when were these Z> implemented if they exist, and if they don't exist, why not? How Z> expensive could a small radio in a crash container cost? Little airplanes have ELTs, Emergency Location Transmitters. They were optional for a long time, but because required some time in the last ten years or so. Ejection seats have emergency beacons for aircrew location and rescue. Anything that flies in controlled airspace (on radar, in other words) has to have an altitude-encoding radar transponder that talks to the ATC radar to tell it where the plane is and how high. Z> If an airplane does indeed crash, what it used to find its Z> position? For a plane flying in controlled airspace, they start from where it disappeared from the radar screen and look along its projected path. For an ELT-equipped airplane, they DF (Direction Find) the ELT signal by triangulation. In friendly territory, they track down ejected aircrew in a combination of the two by knowing where it vanished off the radar and in what direction, then working their way back up the flight path from the smoking wreckage. If they can't find the aircrew or communicate with them on Guard (the e-seat survival gear includes a PRC-20, or equivalent), then they DF the beacon. In enemy territory, where the aircrew is E&E-ing (escaping and evading), the aircrew helps by talking the SAR people into the right location. Z> Is there any possibility of 'alive' reoccuring? Sure. (Why do I think this isn't the answer you want to hear?) All that needs to happen is that the ELT be non-functional (expired batteries, impact damage, etc) or the airplane be in some sort of radar shadow. Or for the accident to happen in bad weather, particularly at night, so the search & rescue folks can't find the airplane until after the beacon batteries run down, particularly in rugged terrain. Planes are hard to find in unpopulated areas, in mountains, in forests. That airplane in "Alive" would have been easier to find if it had caught fire--columns of smoke are easy to locate. There was a guy flying his little plane VFR who crashed fairly near I-15, in the mountains by San Bernardino a couple of months ago. He crawled down the hillside to a frontage road and was found by a CHP officer. No one knew that he'd crashed. I suspect that the officer thought he was a body that someone had dumped (not uncommon in the less populated areas around a large metropolis). -- 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 Fri Apr 19 02:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "William R. Hoscheit" Subject: RE: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Pacific Presentation Graphics Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:03 Message-ID: John, There are many factors that influence a specific aircraft's configuration. Specificially, t-tail aircraft have certain characteristics that are beneficial to design. For example, it can provide improved performance, due to cleaner wing configuration on short or hot and high field operations. However, one of the penalties associated with t-tailed aircraft are diminished low-altitude/low speed handling. It can also affect weight and balance, providing such a tight center of gravity that the IL-62 includes a hydraulic "kick-stand" to support the plane's rear weight while loading and unloading. As powerplants have improved, there has been less of a need to implement a t-tail approach to performance. Also, due to the size of some of the engines, the sheer design considerations of placement and support in the tail section become a greater challenge. One other factor that effects current design is the much-improved wing structures. With the arrival of light-weight composites, and a better understanding of sweep, aspect-ratio, and super-critical features, designers are able to extract performance on winged designs that previously couldn't be acheived. Also, engine maintenance is much easier on winged designs. Accessing the fans can be done from the ground, vs. elaborate scaffolding structures that virtually all t-tail planes require. Finally, economics have driven manufacturers to address the widest possible customer appeals. The CV-990, Trident, VC-10, and other examples of market or carrier-specific designs have proven unprofitable. There is no longer the drive for the prestige of a "jet" aircraft, as they are now the standard. Many carriers weigh these maintenance and support costs into their purchasing decisions, and fleet commonality has become and increasing influence. As the trend is toward wing-mounted design, carriers have been able to reduce or eliminate some of the support overhead associated with t-tails. I hope this provides some useful insight into your question. Regards, Bill Hoscheit From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:03 Message-ID: Max O. Lange (mlange@vmprofs.estec.esa.nl) wrote: : Yeah- good old 614...funny thing: The company was actually named Fokker : and (like its Dutch counterpart?) went broke just as this very nice : aircraft had some market success... I think only ten were build. : Anyway, it really is a small feeder liner though it was mainly used for : VIP transport in the Luftwaffe. One, though, was converted by the DLR : (German aerospace research establishment) to an all-electric everything : simulator called ATTAS. One thing they use it for is laminar flow : research, I think. : I also seem to recall the YC14/YC15 programmes in the States used engines : mounted above and before the wings to increase lift. The Boeing YC-14 has two engines mounted above the wing. This position was chosen to manipulate the flow of exhaust gasses to get more lift. The McDonnel-Douglas YC-15 had 4 engines, they were mounted more conventionally under the wing. The Antonov An-72 has engines above the wing, too. -- Filip De Vos "Manned exploration initiatives will be difficult to afford when transporting a fidevos@eduserv.rug.ac.be single meal to the US space station will cost $15.000" Lt Col John R. London III From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BTPB70A@prodigy.com (Jeff Ellis) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:03 Message-ID: Spin doctor! How to repackage an old product and somehow make it sound new. It happens in american politics every day. RareBearBTPB70A@prodigy.com From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sbaig@aksi.net Subject: Gulfstream IV computer model Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Acquired Knowledge Systems, Inc. Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:03 Message-ID: Need an Autocad or 3DR or other similar renderd 3-dimensional exterior model of the Gulfstream IV. Any leads? NOT available from Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. Please reply by e-mail. Stephen Baig oceanographer, TPC/National Hurricaen Center Miami, FL ocean@nhc.noaa.gov, or sbaig@aksi.net From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PREST, University of Manchester Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:04 Message-ID: [Posted in s.a.a and mailed] On 13 Apr 96 16:44:53 , mlange@vmprofs.estec.esa.nl (Max O. Lange) wrote: >Yeah- good old 614...funny thing: The company was actually named Fokker >and (like its Dutch counterpart?) went broke just as this very nice >aircraft had some market success... The VFW-614 was produced by VFW-Fokker. This company resulted from the merger of the German firm VFW and the Dutch firm Fokker in 1969. The two firms demerged in 1980, though VFW was absorbed into MBB, and later into Daimler Benz Aerospace, as was Fokker in 1993. The VFW sold a grand total of 10 units (last delivery in 1976) according to the figures published in "The European Aerospace Industry: Trading Position and Figures" published by the European Commission. Figures from the 1991 edition, the last one in which the VFW was mentioned. Cheers, -- Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Short History of Airbus available on the Web at: From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jay Selman Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Avion Foto Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:04 Message-ID: mlange@vmprofs.estec.esa.nl (Max O. Lange) wrote: >Yeah- good old 614...funny thing: The company was actually named Fokker >and (like its Dutch counterpart?) went broke just as this very nice >aircraft had some market success... For anyone who is interested, I have a couple of pictures of VFW-614s posted on the Request Page of the AVION FOTO Home Page. -- Jay Selman unclejay@aol.com Standard disclaimers apply Visit the AVION FOTO Home Page at: http://users.aol.com/avfoto/index.htm From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: droms@bucknell.edu (Ralph Droms) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Bucknell University Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:04 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >: I've heard United pilots refer to the older 747s as "rope-starts," a > >: somewhat less complimentary term! > > >Okay, Karl, so, what did they mean by "rope-starts"? :-) This may be related to the only funny bit I've ever seen Jerry Lewis perform (not to start any religious warfare; I, unlike the French, don't find him at all funny). Lewis was a pilot for some two-bit airline, and he started the piston engines by reaching under the control panel to pull lawnmower-style rope starters... - Ralph From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kchao@acsu.buffalo.edu (Kuang-Chung Chao) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: UB Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:04 Message-ID: In article , Jim Wolper wrote: > >I've always wondered why nobody took up the challenge and >referred to the 747SP as a "747 Lite". I've heard "Short Pig", which IMHO is more appropriate for 747SP. ;) kc -- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kuang-Chung "K.C." Chao Tel: +1 (716) 691-5524 Dept. of Electrical and Computer Eng. kchao@acsu.buffalo.edu State Univ. of NY at Buffalo http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kchao From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ryan75@aol.com (Ryan Stevens) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AOL Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:04 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>: The -100 and -200 don't have an upper deck door, except for the small >>: hatch above the cockpit. >The -400F has a glorified ladder leading from the upper deck down to >the main deck; presumably earlier 747F and C models have this as well. >I had assumed the crew boarded through one of the main deck doors and >climbed up. I don't have much contact with freighters, though I have >noticed regular passenger ladders positioned at the first or second >main deck doors. I've never noticed any sort of stairs that reached >all the way up to the upper deck, and I would think that would stand >out pretty clearly. I guess it's time for a sightseeing trip of the >scenic SFO cargo area! :-) Having recently spent some time on a newly delivered SQ 747-400F, I can verify that the cockpit is indeed reached from the main deck by a pull down ladder. It seems that the amount of freight carried in the section directly under the main deck is rather limited due to height restrictions and the contour of the nose. The ceiling in the area under the upper deck has a maximum height of approx. 96 inches, as compared to nearly 120 inches in the remaining portion of the main cargo hold. This also explains the use of the shorter upper deck on the -400F; any increase in the upper deck cuts down on the capacity of the main deck. It has even been said that, if possible, the airlines would rather have the upper deck shorter than it is now in order to maximize the space on the main deck. Given the enormous number of changes that would require, I doubt that it will ever happen. On a similar note, the guy showing me around this particular aircraft at SQ mentioned a story from way back regarding loading of a 747F. It seems the aircraft was being loaded at a station not serviced by the airline itself, but instead was handled by another company under contract. They were trying to load 10 foot high pallets all the way to the nose, not realizing the drop under the upper deck. In forcing the pallets, they managed to structurally damage the back portion of the upper deck, and in the process severed a good number of control cables from the cockpit... Ryan (71223.2155@cis.compuserve.com) From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: LuisBravo <101523.146@CompuServe.COM> Subject: MD11 in order/option Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Iberia Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:05 Message-ID: I would like to know the number of MD11s in order/option. Acoording to several sources i have made the following list : Airline Orders Options ------- ------ ------- FM 3 DL 4 22 WO 6 AA 5 SW 3 6 MP 4 KL 4 7 FN 2 JL 2 10 GA 3 1 BR 5 SV 4 is this list correct ? Any comment welcome. Luis Bravo. 101523.146@compuserve.com From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:05 Message-ID: In article faurecm@halcyon.com "C. Marin Faure" writes: > In article , astracon@aol.com > (Astracon) wrote: > > In a recent conversation with someone from Virgin Atlantic the gentleman > > referred to the airline's 747-200's as 747 Classics. > It's not a term I've heard at Boeing. I suspect it may be a take-off on > the Range Rover Classic idea, as Virgin Atlantic is British. The Range > Rover Classic was a name used toward the end of the original Range Rover's > production run ... Virgin also has a cola soft-drink (same `livery') so it may also be a dig at Coke. -- Niels From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Jet engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Telepath Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:05 Message-ID: In article , 100115.261@CompuServe.COM says... > >Do big fanjets work by Newton's second law or like giant propellers? > Yes to both. There is no conflict. BTW wings work with 2/3 lift on the upper surface and 1/3 push on the lower surface usually, but always by deflecting airflow slightly in the direction opposite the lift. Brian From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:05 Message-ID: Allan Elkowitz wrote: >gt1086c@prism.gatech.edu (Gregory Glockner) wrote: >> I have often found it interesting >>that most of the major airlines have moved to greater frequency with >>smaller aircraft, yet Delta uses widebodies for a bunch of 90 minute >>flights out of Atlanta (c.f. ORD, MCO, FLL, PBI). >I inquired about this recently while on a short flight on an L1011 -? >from Cincinnati to Boston one evening when the plane was >nearly empty. I was told that the only reason such a large and empty >plane was used for such a short flight was to position the aircraft in >Boston for an 8:00 a.m. run to Florida when it would be expected >to be full. First of all, some airlines - United and American - have moved to a very centralized hub system. For any given United city you are likely to find a flight to one or more hubs - Denver, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington-Dulles. For American, it seems that Dallas/Ft.Worth and Chicago are the primary hubs. Northwest and Minneapolis. TWA and St. Louis. Some other airlines, say Southwest, specialize in point-to-point service : the west coast corridor, cross-Texas, etc. Now, US-Air and Delta seem to be two airlines that have nationwide service *AND* a heavily point-to-point schedule. It would seem that certain stage lengths would prove difficult to schedule with a fixed number of aircraft. And if traffic demands a wide-body, then the schedule would have to provide for a wide-body showing up at the appropriate time. For even odder staging, consider the SkyWest flights out west. I'm flying from San Jose to Newark and am routed San Jose to LAX on SkyWest (which stops at Santa Barbara on both outbound and inbound legs). -tim From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:05 Message-ID: In article , Callisto wrote: >You're mistaken. Next time you see a series -100 or -200, have a closer look. >There is one door on the starboard (right) side only. No left side emergency >door. There is also a flight deck crew escape hatch above the cockpit. Actuall I am on them daily and can assure there is one on each side. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org AME (Canada), A&P, PPASEL HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg -- If it is Blue, Frozen and falls through your roof, It is not a Meteorite. From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) Subject: Re: Canadair Regional Jet Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Idaho State University Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:05 Message-ID: I have not flown the RJ but have heard some complaints that due to the narrow main landing gear it can be a little tricky in a crosswind. Jim Wolper CFI-ASMEI From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nick Booth Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: HK Super Net Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:06 Message-ID: > > I have here in a copy of Janes, a photo (and little else) of > > a small feederliner called a VFW-614, from West Germany. > > > > There is a slightly swept wing, with two small fanjets mounted > > on pylons ABOVE the wing. The wing is mounted low on the fuselage, > > ala 737. > Ages ago (well a few years anyway), I remember seeing a photo of this model, with the caption stating that it was a design in noise reduction for people on the ground - ie put the engines above the wings, and the wings rebound noise above, and not below, the aircraft. Was this true ? It doesn't seem to have had much of an impact... Thanks, Nick From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dave Lawson Subject: Re: S80 Ground Checks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AlliedSignal Engines, Phoenix, Az Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:06 Message-ID: John Liebson wrote: > How about not all of AA's large fleet of MD-80s having been modified? > I don't know if this is true--but I certain see lots of manual wing > checking on this fleet, even on warm days at ABQ, due to the fact that > the ice often forms *after* landing. > > We waited for deicing on one of these aircraft at DFW one warm > evening, only to have the ice melt off of the wings as we moved > forward in the deicing queue. The entire AA MD-80 fleet has been equipped, according to my sources. Some of them have systems that have gone in-op. From kls Fri Apr 19 02:04:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Dill Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship (The Vomit Comet) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Apr 96 02:04:06 Message-ID: The Boeing KC135 that NASA uses to train astronauts in simulated zero-g is the oldest one flying. (The Vomit Comet) I also believe it has the fewest flight hours. The Boeing Company monitors the aircraft on a regular basis as the airframe is constantly subjected to g-loads of +2 to -.1. The original straight turbojet engines are still installed and use water injection on take-off. It might also be the loudest transport aircraft still flying in the US. From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: Re: MD11 in order/option Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:45 Message-ID: I can tell you that as of 4/96, FedEx has only one MD-11F on order, not including the MD-11s from American. I don't know when it is scheduled to be delivered. From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dougie@mama.indstate.edu Subject: Re: Early flap retraction Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:46 Message-ID: Depending on the takeoff flap setting, at least in the U.S, if one uses a high takeoff flap setting (say flaps 25 for a B727), you can retract flaps to flaps 15 when passing 400'AGL in the takeoff climb. So, if the crew was using a high takeoff flap setting, for a short takeoff roll on a short runway, a flap retraction to an intermediate setting improves the climb performance, while the higher flap deflection setting improves the takeoff run performance. So, this is possibly why, or the airplane was accelerating like a scalded cat! ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie Ex Northwest Arlns ESE, MSP Ramp, Green Concourse - and misses EETP Indiana University, Bloomington School of Law, Class of 2001! From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Early flap retraction Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:46 Message-ID: In article , showie@uoguelph.ca (Steve Howie) wrote: >I was on a Cdn. Airlines 737 flight from Halifax, Nova Scotia to St. >John's Newfoundland a couple of years ago. When we took off, it was into a >strong headwind, and the plane climbed at what seemed like an inordinately >steep deck angle. I could have sworn I saw the flaps on the trailing edge >of the wing fully retracting about 30 seconds or so into the climb, which >seems very early indeed. The presence of a head wind shouldn't affect the deck angle. It will affect your angle of climb over the ground but once airborne, you fly strictly relative to the air mass. >Is this a normal occurence under such "favourable" take-off conditions? >Would the extra lift afforded by the headwind make flap use less >significant? Or were my eyes maybe playing tricks on me? Once in the air, the wind becomes irrelevant to "take-off conditions". You'll use less runway but you still fly the plane at the same indicated airspeed (which of course is relative to the air mass, not the ground). -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cpeters Subject: Re: Early flap retraction Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: North Bay Network, Inc. news server - not responsible for content Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:47 Message-ID: Steve Howie wrote: > I could have sworn I saw the flaps on the trailing edge of the wing fully > retracting about 30 seconds or so into the climb, which seems very early > indeed. > Is this a normal occurence under such "favourable" take-off conditions? > Would the extra lift afforded by the headwind make flap use less > significant? Or were my eyes maybe playing tricks on me? This is certainly possible, especially if the plane was light. First, let's deal with the headwind. The plane does not get extra lift from a headwind - it only changes the ground speed at which takeoff occurs (and takeoff roll distance). The plane cares only about its speed in relation to air. So if takeoff is at 130 knots, and you have a 20 knot headwind, the groundspeed will be 110 knots. The second issue regards weight. If an aircraft is light, it needs less lift to become airborne, thus less speed rlative to the air, and uses less runway to reach the lower speed. If the 737 was light, it may have a takeoff speed 40-50 knots less than max gross. It will reach takeoff speed in a shorter distance, and accelerate quickly. In your flight, I imagine the plane was light, reached takeoff speed, and then accelerated in the climb quickly beyond the flaps up speed. For every flight on any airliner, the aircraft weight (empty+cargo+pax+fuel) is added up, then takeoff speeds calculated or looked up from a table based on that weight. Thus a 747 at 600,000 pounds may have a rotate speed of 140knots, V1 (liftoff and climb) of 150, whereas at 650,000 it may be 146 and 158. Flaps up will differ,too. After the cruise, the weight is estimated after subtracting fuel consumed, then landing flap settings can be looked up, with the same principles applying. Hope this helps, Carl Peters From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter Haessler Subject: Fuel conservation Boeing, MD, Airbus Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:47 Message-ID: Would appreciate suggestions for 1. Calculation models of fuel burn as function of of landing weight, route distance, aircraft model,(engine type). 2. Calculation models for range/payload limitations do you suggest. Thanks in advance Peter Hassler From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cchilds@iastate.edu (Chanler Childs) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Iowa State University Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:47 Message-ID: Not sure if this is exactly the right newsgroup for it, but as a side note, I'll throw it in. I've heard that the airflow over the wing is much more critical than the airflow under it, so placing obstructions above the wing can be very bad. Chanler Childs cchilds@iastate.edu From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Hughes Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:47 Message-ID: In article , Filip De Vos writes >Max O. Lange (mlange@vmprofs.estec.esa.nl) wrote: >: Yeah- good old 614... >I think only ten were build. Actually 19 were completed and 4 relatively built were not completed. Components for a further 12 were under way when production ceased. -- Pete From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:47 Message-ID: > 707. As a matter of fact, the military originally wanted the McDonnell > Douglas aircraft that would be similar to the DC-8 (the designation > escapes me). The original order for the KC-135 was only for a few > aircraft in order to help the military out until MD could produce it's > competition. Most of this comes from a series that aired on The Not quite - actually Lockheed won the Air Force competition for the new tanker aircraft. However, Boeing beat them to the punch by offering the 367-80, which was much further along. The Lockheed project was never built, but I have seen a drawing of it. If I remember right, it actually looked quite similar to the KC-135. Further to my previous post on this subject, the C-135s were built on a Safe-Life principle, of 7178 Aluminum. The 707s, in contrast, were Fail-Safe structures, built of 2024 Aluminum. Additionally, the turbojet C-135s' cabin pressurization was provided by compressor bleed air, while on the 707s, bleed air was used to drive a turbo-compressor, which provided cabin pressurization. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Vince Horan Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: B&CE Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:48 Message-ID: In article , Mary Shafer writes >Are you sure it's the Dash 80? I thought the Dash 80 was what Douglas >was certifying in the early '80s, The full designation of the Boeing for runner was 367-80, the McDonnell airliner is the MD-80 (based on the DC-9). -- Vince Horan (Anagram: Convair Hen) email: Horan@BandCE.demon.co.uk Gatwick Aviation Society http://www.totavia.com/hawkeye Old Airliners http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Vince_Horan/aviation.htm B&CE http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Vince_Horan From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etech@deltanet.com Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Delta Internet Services, Anaheim, CA Reply-To: etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:48 Message-ID: In , shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >Are you sure it's the Dash 80? Boeing's original prototype jet transport was the "367-80". (The suffix is where the term "Dash 80" comes from.) The KC-135 and the 707 series were both derivatives of this prototype. According to "Boeing 707 & AWACS" by Alwyn T. Lloyd (part of the "In Detail and Scale" series published by Aero), the KC-135 was known within Boeing as the 717. Does this sound right to the rest of you? I don't recall this from any of the other 707 material I've come across. -- etech@deltanet.com Eric Chevalier Compu$erve: 76010,2463 etech@netcom.com --------------------- Prodigy: GCXJ11A http://www.deltanet.com/users/etech From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:48 Message-ID: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) shaped the electrons to say: >Are you sure it's the Dash 80? I thought the Dash 80 was what Douglas Yes, it was the Boeing Model 367-80, and normally just got called the Dash 80. the Smithsonian has it now. >was certifying in the early '80s, when they broke the tailcone off >with an FAA pilot flying, doing the runway work here at Edwards. They That was probably the MD-80 aka Super-80 (aka DC-9 evolution). MD would liek to claim it is a new breed, but it is really founded on the DC-9. >I also believe that Boeing had to guarantee that opening the 707 line >would not impact the KC-135 schedules in any way. Yes. The 367-80 was the prototype/proof of concept. From there they developed an airliner. But the first customer was the USAF for tanker and cargo aircraft. This was eventually dubbed the Boeing Model 717 and we know it better as the C-135 series. This was *also* going to be the form of the airliner. However, Douglas announced the DC-8 with a fuselage that was wider than the then '707'. So Boeing did a crash redesign and developed the final form factor for what we know today as the Boeing Model 707. It shares roots and some components with the 717/-135 but it is largely a new aircraft. -MZ -- megazone@world.std.com 510-527-0944 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.creative - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:48 Message-ID: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov writes: >According to the then-current Jane's All the World's Aircraft, the >KC-135 prototypes were being built when Boeing decided to offer an >airliner version. They, Boeing, had to get permission from the USAF >to use the KC-135 R&D rather than develop the 707 completely from >scratch (which would, of course, be impossible--the genie was out of >the bottle, after all). The USAF also had to grant permission for >Boeing to set up the 707 production line, as it competed with the >KC-135 line for skilled workers. I verified this in contemporaneous >Flight International articles. (Fortunately, Dryden has an extensive >collection of past issues and editions of these, making it very >simple.) The 707 *was* intended as an airliner, right from day one, but with an eye to a military tanker as well. Partly, there was a recognition that airliners needed to be build *as* airliners, not cobbled together from bits of military aircraft as Boeing had done on the past as in the Stratoliner and Stratocruiser. The 707 model number was actually picked for the airliner before the Dash-80 (Model 367-80) development was approved. The 707 number was withdrawn for the prototype in an attempt to put the competition off the scent... The issue of the tooling was that the KC-135 programme price included the tooling required to build the planes. As such, to use the same tooling for the 707 required Pentagon permission. At this stage, the 707 and KC-135 were going to have the same fuselage width, so building a separate line for the 707 would have been ludicrous. Eventually Boeing agreed to pay part of the tooling cost, and the 707 could be built on the same line. >The only significant difference between the two airframes is the >fuselage shape; the KC-135 has a circular cross section, while the 707 >has a bi-lobar cross section, with the floor at the intersection of >the two circular lobes. The 707 fuselage was designed to give >passengers shoulder room, something fuel tanks don't require, and more >baggage space. I understood that the KC-135 also has a bi-lobar cross-section; it's just not as pronounced since the upper lobe is smaller than on the 707. I tend to believe this as a circular cross section on would have been very much more difficult proposition to modify than one that already had the crease beam (at floor level) taking some of the pressure. The change of course came when United built mockups of the proposed DC-8 cabin alongside the 707 cabin and demonstrated how the DC-8 would be able to accomodate six-abreast seating whereas the 707 would only manage five. After that, the 707 design was modified to be an inch wider than the DC-8, but still retaining the same basic airframe. >Thus, the 707 is, in fact, a KC-135 derivative, rather than the >reverse, although the reverse is very commonly believed. I don't think that interpretation is any better -- the 367-80/707/717 airframe was designed with an eye to both the commercial airliner and the military tanker. >In addition, the 747 is rather vaguely based on the Boeing entry into >the competition that resulted in the C-5 buy. The USAF funded the >initial design work for the various paper planes, of course. However, >there's not a lot of the original remaining in the 747, but they did >do the general calculations for sizing, etc. However, I would not >really say that the 747 is a derivative of this paper plane, at all, >as so little of the latter survived in the former. The key to both the C-5 and 747 deveopments was the high-bypass engine, which was originally developed by GE. Boeing proposed the C5 to the Air Force based around this engine -- and lost the subsequent competition to build the thing to Lockheed, mainly because Lockheed would build the C5 in the more politically important Georgia. In fact the Pratt & Whitney JT-9D used on the 747 was a more conservative design than the GE engine, with a much lower bypass ratio and designed for the higher cruising speed of the 747 over the C5. Bear in mind that the 747 went through a number of iterations, most involving much narrower double deck configurations, before the wide body was settled on. If anything, the 747 is a scaled-up 707 (but with the flight deck moved out of the way of the nose so that it can accomodate a cargo door) much more than it is a re-work of Boeing's C-5 proposal. Of course many of the Boeing engineers who worked on C-5 proposal moved to the 747... -- 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 Sat Apr 20 14:02:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "A. Kevin Rodriguez" Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Coleman & Rodriguez Consulting Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:49 Message-ID: Andrew Muir wrote: > >> In a recent conversation with someone from Virgin Atlantic the gentleman > >> referred to the airline's 747-200's as 747 Classics. > >It's not a term I've heard at Boeing. > Have you heard the 737-3/4/500 referred to as the 737 "Classic" in Puget > Sound? That's what we are calling them here in Wichita. Does this mean that the -100s of the 37 and 47 should be called the 7x7 "Relic"? Let's see now 747 Classic, Apple Classic, ... "Classic" = Marketing ploy to sell outdated technology as an economical alternative. __ A. Kevin Rodriguez (bmi@tiac.com) Coleman & Rodriguez Consulting Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03802 From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:49 Message-ID: In article "Niels M. Sampath" writes: > In article faurecm@halcyon.com "C. Marin Faure" writes: > > In article , astracon@aol.com > > (Astracon) wrote: > > > In a recent conversation with someone from Virgin Atlantic the gentleman > > > referred to the airline's 747-200's as 747 Classics. > > It's not a term I've heard at Boeing. I suspect it may be a take-off on > > the Range Rover Classic idea, as Virgin Atlantic is British. The Range > > Rover Classic was a name used toward the end of the original Range Rover's > > production run ... > Virgin also has a cola soft-drink (same `livery') so it may also be a dig > at Coke. I don't think people should read all that much into it. I've heard airline management people talk about the { B727 | B737-200 | B747-100 | B747 | DC9 | DC10 } as "classic" airframes, for the simple reason that the aircraft architecture is electromechanical instrumentation with relatively little digital avionics. Note that most examples of these airframes are approaching an age of 20 years or more, which is the US rule of thumb for when automobiles can be called "classic" cars. This is in contrast to glass aircraft, which are much more easily adaptable to retrofit of GPS and other new CNS technology, because of digital avionics architectures. In fact, some airline people I've talked to (two separate companies) call the B727 the "Jurassic Jet". They used it as a term of endearment. 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 Sat Apr 20 14:02:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@netcom.com (Pete Coe) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:49 Message-ID: droms@bucknell.edu (Ralph Droms) writes: >In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >(Karl Swartz) wrote: >> >: I've heard United pilots refer to the older 747s as "rope-starts," a >> >: somewhat less complimentary term! >> >> >Okay, Karl, so, what did they mean by "rope-starts"? :-) >This may be related to the only funny bit I've ever seen Jerry Lewis >perform (not to start any religious warfare; I, unlike the French, don't >find him at all funny). Lewis was a pilot for some two-bit airline, and >he started the piston engines by reaching under the control panel to pull >lawnmower-style rope starters... On a BA 747 at Harare airport 1/1/1983 the crew couldn't get one of the engines started. Due to some presumed lack in local service ability he attempted to start the engine by a very high speed taxi down the runway. It didn't work. From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jay Biederman Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Multiverse Reply-To: jbb@mail.multiverse.com Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:49 Message-ID: I know the guys at Boeing Customer Support call the 747-200 the "Classic". Jay Biederman From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:49 Message-ID: In article shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >R> The overhatch thing with the inertial reels is for the flight crew >R> only. > >According to an article I read years ago in Callback, 747s had a >knotted rope that could be tossed out one of the windows so that the >cockpit crew could shinny down it. I read about this in an article >that discussed the practice of taxiing on two engines to save fuel >because of OPEC, so it was some time ago. The windows on the 747 are bolted closed. This caused a howl among pilots when this was announced, for a variety of operational reasons. Among them, in a smoke emergency or damaged windscreen, in other airplanes (both older and newer), pilots can poke their heads out the side and maneuver the airplane by visual reference. They are protected from wind blast by the bow wave. I ran across as SETP paper a few years ago which indicated that this practice was extremely unusual, and was one of the things that was destined to die in the wave of "need to know" analyses. Interestingly, I ran across a reference in some 757 training material recently which indicates the pilots can poke their heads out the side, safely, to maneuver. :-) I wonder if this had anything to do with the loss of a South African Airways 747 cargo flight off Mauritania a few years ago, after a fire caused by cargo resulted in dense smoke in the cockpit. Shit happens. :-( As far as I know, it is not feasible to modify the 747's windows to open, and no carriers have pursued that as an option. The overhead inertial reels are just handles with maybe .20-gauge steel cable attached. There's only one way to go: DOWN. And hopefully the braking action will work. This was put to bad use by the crew of a Pan American 747 which was hijacked to Karachi around 1985/86 (the lack of leadership arguably resulted in the high death toll, later, in contrast to the role that the late Jack Testrake played on the TWA 727 which was hijacked by terrorists just a few months later). -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BGS0857@wbv1.bems.boeing.com (Greg Smith - Boeing - Wichita Division) Subject: Re: 747-300 and -400 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Boeing Company Reply-To: BGS0857@wbv1.bems.boeing.com (Greg Smith - Boeing - Wichita Division) Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:50 Message-ID: Brad Gillies wrote: > In article , Callisto wrote: > >You're mistaken. Next time you see a series -100 or -200, have a > >closer look. There is one door on the starboard (right) side only. > >No left side emergency door. There is also a flight deck crew > >escape hatch above the cockpit. > Actually I am on them daily and can assure there is one on each side. All 747-100s and -200s have at least the single door on the right hand side behind the cockpit. Some also have a left hand door opposite the other door. It just depends on what the original customer configuration was when the aircraft was built. Greg Smith 737-700 Weight Engineer From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dougie@mama.indstate.edu Subject: Re: S80 Ground Checks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:50 Message-ID: The checks are required per an FAA Airworthiness Directive for the airplane. If any ice-detection wicks are missing, the Configuration Deviation List is to be consulted. I think that you can be missing two per side and dispatch is still legal. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie Ex Northwest Arlns ESE, MSP Ramp, Green Concourse - and misses EETP Indiana University, Bloomington School of Law, Class of 2001! Well I hope so anyway ;) From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: Does a 747 actually have a drop ceiling? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Your Organization Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:50 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6 >> Does a 747 really have a drop ceiling above the passenger cabin? Is this >> mostly open space like the movie suggests? I personally don't belive it >> is, but wanted to ask someone who might actually know this. I appriciate >> your help. > >Haven't seen the movie, but I have seen a "drop ceiling" on a B747 >used as storage for ... well let me explain. > I haven't seen the movie either. I have been inside the NASA 747 Shuttle Carrier aircraft, the former American Airlines plane. This plane had a plywood floor aft of where the spiral staircase goes to the upper deck. It had about 20 seats on the main deck forward of the spiral staircase. I remember that the plane looked much higher inside. There was no ceiling in the aircraft, you could see the entire upper portion of the fuselage frames down the length of the aircraft. I do remember that one or two of the fuselage frames that are where the aft part of the shuttle attaches to the 747 had large gussets added to the frames. The NASA 747 was in Boeing Wichita for maintanence following the trip to the Paris Air Show in 1983 or 1984. From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rolfe Tessem Subject: Re: Cruise Relief Pilots Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Lucky Duck Productions, Inc. Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:50 Message-ID: Simon Craig wrote: > > In article , hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk > wrote: > > >In article: peter neville > >gurnell writes: > >> I understand that Carriers such as Quantas, Cathay and Eva > >> use cruise relief non endorsed pilots who demonstrate emergency > >> descent and a few other items but no T/O or landing. > > Perhaps you are referring to 2nd officers, who I think at Qantas are not > senior enough to do take offs and landings, but often fly cruise for > periods. I think second officers even relieve the flight engineers on > older 747s. It is basically to train them, and secondly to relieve the > senior crew I think. I came in late on this thread, but isn't it true that, as far as the FAA in the U.S. is concerned, only the captain or pilot in command has to be type-rated? I understand that from a practical standpoint, the carrier is going to want the entire crew to be type-rated, but I don't believe this is the actual FAA requirement. -- Rolfe Tessem | Lucky Duck Productions, Inc. rolfe@ldp.com | 96 Morton Street (212) 463-0029 | New York, NY 10014 From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:50 Message-ID: A friend of my reported recently riding in the cockpit of an A340. At one point, the pilot flipped a switch and asked my friend if he had felt anything unusual about how the plane was flying. My friend did not notice anything. The pilot then told him that he had just shut down the number 3 engine. He indicated that the autopilot handled the shutdown to such an extent that there was no physical sensation, just an indication of a drop in engine RPM. Are there any A340 experts out there who can comment on this? From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: co160@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ron Poole) Subject: Re: Cruise Relief Pilots Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Reply-To: co160@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ron Poole) Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:51 Message-ID: There seems to a bit of misunderstanding about Cruise Relief Pilots. In canada, and I am certain that other ICAO member nations, require that the pilot be qualified for the seat he is occupying. This is because there are specific duties associated with that seat and the pilot must demonstrate that he can perform those functions. Flight engineers would never be legally permitted in a "forward facing" seat, but Second Officers could be if trained. There are cases where we would not allow a Captain to fly right seat if he had never been an FO on that equipment or not trained in the seat. Type endorsements or lack of, do not mean that the FO has not qualified or been trained. The FAA do not type rate FO's despite the fact that he/she has taken the full training and passed the required checks. Ron Poole From kls Sat Apr 20 14:02:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Czech Airlines Agrees to Buy B737s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 96 14:02:51 Message-ID: The following item is taken from the Carolina news digest No 198, Friday, April 12, 1996. Carolina is a summary of news from the Czech Republic broadcast on e-mail by students of Charles University, Prague. Czech Airlines Agrees to Buy Planes Czech Airlines (CSA) recently signed its largest aircraft purchase contract - the airline will pay 350 million USD for 10 Boeing 737s, according to the April 6 edition of Czech daily MF DNES. Boeing defeated European manufacturer Airbus Industries, who offered 15 A-319 and A-320 airplanes. According to Transportation Minister Vladimir Budinsky, the Americans' offer was more advantageous in decisive areas (lower price of the planes, training costs, future economic results for CSA). According to the information released by the newspaper, the new Boeings will replace old Russian Tu-134 airplanes and will strenghten lines in central and eastern Europe and also in the Middle East. The CSA fleet will neumber 27 aircraft aftert the changes, the newspaper reported. Arsen Kocarjan/Petra Sevcikova Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Apr 22 01:24:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Stretch A340-600 and MD-11 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 22 Apr 96 01:24:01 Message-ID: Recently, both Airbus and McDonnell Douglas have announced their studies to build a 375-seat long-range aircraft based on current models to compete with Boeing's B747-400. Airbus also has signed an exclusive agreement with GE for engine study. The new engine requirement is a lot greater than the original anticipated requirement. Originally, CFM International proposed a 41,000-lb-thrust CFM-XX, and Pratt & Whitney proposed a 43,000-lb-thrust PW2143 (as well as Rolls' RB411 proposal). The new thrust requirement is reported to be at 51,000-lb. The new engine may be what GE used call the GE45, a GE90 derivative. GE seems to favor going back to the old days when each aircraft would have only one engine supplier. I wonder if Boeing will consider building a "B-market" B777-300 when the B747-400 production line closes? -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Mon Apr 22 01:24:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Cruise Relief Pilots Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 22 Apr 96 01:24:02 Message-ID: In article , co160@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ron Poole) wrote: >Flight engineers would never be >legally permitted in a "forward facing" seat, but Second Officers could be >if trained. I'm confused. In my experience (mostly UA), Flight Engineer and Second Officer is synonomous. Obviously, you have a different meaning for Second Officer. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Mon Apr 22 01:24:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 22 Apr 96 01:24:02 Message-ID: In article , amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net (Andrew Muir) wrote: > In article , > faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: > >In article , astracon@aol.com > >(Astracon) wrote: > > > >> In a recent conversation with someone from Virgin Atlantic the gentleman > >> referred to the airline's 747-200's as 747 Classics. > > >It's not a term I've heard at Boeing. > > Marin, > > Have you heard the 737-3/4/500 referred to as the 737 "Classic" in Puget > Sound? That's what we are calling them here in Wichita. Not yet, but I haven't done any work with the 737 people for quite awhile. Most of my recent projects have been with the 777. However, I haven't heard any of the upper management use that term yet. But if you're using the term in Wichita, I'm sure it will catch on here. Just print "Another 737 Classic from the Experts in Wichita" in big letters on the protective wrapping on the next -300, -400, or -500 fuselage you ship out, and I'm sure the term will spread through the Renton plant like wildfire. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Apr 22 01:24:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 22 Apr 96 01:24:02 Message-ID: In article , etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) wrote: > According to "Boeing 707 & AWACS" by Alwyn T. Lloyd (part of the "In > Detail and Scale" series published by Aero), the KC-135 was known within > Boeing as the 717. Does this sound right to the rest of you? I don't > recall this from any of the other 707 material I've come across. Yes, the "official" Boeing designation for the KC-135 is 717. However, I've never heard that designation used in my 17 years at the company. We call it the KC-135. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Apr 22 01:24:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 22 Apr 96 01:24:03 Message-ID: In article , megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) wrote: > shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) shaped the electrons to say: > >Are you sure it's the Dash 80? I thought the Dash 80 was what Douglas > > Yes, it was the Boeing Model 367-80, and normally just got called the Dash 80. > the Smithsonian has it now. The 367-80 designation was an attempt to "hide" the true nature of the program from the competition. The 367 is the model number of the piston-engine Stratocruiser. It was thought that by naming the jet prototype program "367-80," the competition would think Boeing was working on a "dash" derivative of the Stratocruiser, not an all-new jet. In common usage, "367-80" simply became "Dash-80." The plane is currently flyable, and is on Boeing Field. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Apr 22 01:24:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Birgenair 757 crash - A&C article Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CLIPS-IMAG, Grenoble, France Date: 22 Apr 96 01:24:03 Message-ID: A short abstract of Air & Cosmos Aviation international, Friday 12 April, page 31. The article says that the pilot pitot probe seems to be blocked. So the pilot speed indication was wrong (too much). At 5000ft the overspeed alarm ring, so the pilot reduce trust and pull up. Then the stall warning ring. A lot of confuse in the airplane. The pilot put the auto-pilot off. The F/O put full-trust. The plane stall. 101 seconds after the plane crash. What I do not understand is if a pitot probe is blocked. the indicated speed must be lower than the air speed, not highter ? Francis JAMBON -- Equipe Ingenierie des Interfaces Homme-Machine Tel : (+33) 76 63 59 70 Human-Computer Interfaces Engineering Group Fax : (+33) 76 44 66 75 E-mail: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr - URL: http://clips.imag.fr/iihm/francis.jambon/ ___________ CLIPS-IMAG, B203, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France ___________ From kls Mon Apr 22 01:24:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Re: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CLIPS-IMAG, Grenoble, France Date: 22 Apr 96 01:24:03 Message-ID: In article (Dans l'article) , Andrew Goldfinger wrote (=E9crivait)=A0: > A friend of my reported recently riding in the cockpit of an > A340. At one point, the pilot flipped a switch and asked my friend if he > had felt anything unusual about how the plane was flying. My friend did > not notice anything. The pilot then told him that he had just shut down > the number 3 engine. He indicated that the autopilot handled the shutdown > to such an extent that there was no physical sensation, just an indication > of a drop in engine RPM. Are there any A340 experts out there who can > comment on this? I am not a "expert" but the auto-pilot of A320/A330/A340 can cope with an engine shutdown even just after take-off when the auto-pilot is engaged. It is one of the best Airbus security system [from Airbus press] I don't know if Boeing or MD Douglas airliners have such a thing. IMO it is a very good safety system, but the problem is that the auto-pilot do not give enough feedback to pilots, the RMP drop is not enough, I would prefer a aural warning too. Francis JAMBON -- Equipe Ingenierie des Interfaces Homme-Machine Tel : (+33) 76 63 59 70 Human-Computer Interfaces Engineering Group Fax : (+33) 76 44 66 75 E-mail: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr - URL: http://clips.imag.fr/iihm/francis.jambon/ ___________ CLIPS-IMAG, B203, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France ___________ From kls Mon Apr 22 01:24:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: tiffany.tyler@man.ac.uk (Tiffany Tyler) Subject: Re: AA & the Airbus A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PREST- University of Manchester Reply-To: Tiffany.Tyler@man.ac.uk Date: 22 Apr 96 01:24:03 Message-ID: >>>American Airlines will, if they order it, probably use the 777 on it's trans- >>>-continental routes (American Airlines is one of the few airlines still using >>>wide-bodies on these routes) >>If you mean "transcontinental" as flights to LAX, SEA, SFO out of >>EWR, IAD, JFK, then you are wrong because most of these flights use >>767 or DC-10 widebodies. I spent some time with AA in Dallas this past January, and frankly, the speculation about a 777 acquisition for them seems misplaced. They have been taking DC-10s out of service (selling one to Continental) and concentrating the 767s on the widebody routes. The only aquisition decision their Fleet Transactions Office was concerned about in January was the possible 727 replacements- and huushkitting seemed the much more viable option. Discussion of 777 was limited to what I construed as wishful thinking. The current fleet aquisition strategy seems to be one of holding off and trying to make better use of what they have- hence the tweaking of their expert computer system for fleet allocation . I would be really surprised to see them order anything large for at least another year or 2. From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: MD11 in order/option Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:30 Message-ID: The March 29, 1996 issue of SpeedNews, gave the following list of Customers/Operators: In Service On Order Engine Type Alitalia 8(5*) - CF6 American Airlines 18 - CF6 China Eastern 6(1F) - PW4460 Delta 11 4 PW4460 EVA 6(3F) - CF6 Fedex 16(5F/1**) 3F CF6 Finnair 4 - CF6 Garuda 6 3ER CF6 Japan Airlines 8 2 PW4460 KLM 8 1 CF6 Korean Air 5(2F) - PW4460 LTU 4 - PW4460 Malayasia Airlines**** 4(1F/1CvF) - PW4460 Mandarin 4 - PW4460 Martinair 4CvF 1F PW4460 Saudi Government 2 - CF6 Saudia - 4F CF6 Swissair 13 2(1***) PW4460 Thai 4 - CF6 Varig 6 - CF6 VASP 7 - CF6 World 5(2ER/1CvF) - PW4460 Undisclosed - 2 PW4460 ----------- ---------- Totals 149 22 * Combis ** One ex-American being converted to a freighter *** Not confirmed by Douglas **** Wet-leased from World F Freighter ER Extended Range CvF Convertible Freighter AA has sold their entire fleet to Fedex, for conversion to freighters ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tiffany.tyler@man.ac.uk (Tiffany Tyler) Subject: Leasing company orders Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PREST- University of Manchester Reply-To: Tiffany.Tyler@man.ac.uk Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:31 Message-ID: I have a general question about orders placed by leasing companies. Can anyone walk me through their acquisition strategies/criteria? When ILFC places an order, for instance, do they already have the leases lined up with the airlines, meaning that they buy what a cash-strapped carrier cannot afford based on the airline's own needs? Or do they do generic buying in anticipation of general market trends? At the low end of the leasing market, I can understand a small company owning 2 or 3 planes and leasing them out, say to charter companies, to supplement seasonal capapcity requirements. But the mechanics behind an ILFC or a GE Capital are less clear to me, at least in terms of how they make a specific equipment decision. Help! From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfroseth@aol.com (GFroseth) Subject: Airbus Website Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: gfroseth@aol.com (GFroseth) Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:31 Message-ID: For the Airbus aficionados, check out Airbus Industrie's Website....it's operational now at www.airbus.com. Seems to be pretty extensive, with lots of info on the European manufacturer, history, product line, airline customers, new developments, etc. If you're into taking an Airbus quiz, it's at the end...and check out the photo gallery. From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:31 Message-ID: >> > In a recent conversation with someone from Virgin Atlantic the gentleman >> > referred to the airline's 747-200's as 747 Classics. > >> It's not a term I've heard at Boeing. I suspect it may be a take-off on >> the Range Rover Classic idea, as Virgin Atlantic is British. The Range >> Rover Classic was a name used toward the end of the original Range Rover's >> production run ... Hmmm...we call them 747 Classics (or even Dinosaurs) at Qantas, and I can assure you it has nothing to do with Rangies. It is used by nearly everyone in Engineering (at QF) but I have no idea of it's origin - it's just another word for "original" Simon Craig. -- simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Cruise Relief Pilots Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:32 Message-ID: Rolfe Tessem writes: > I came in late on this thread, but isn't it true that, as far as the FAA > in the U.S. is concerned, only the captain or pilot in command has to be > type-rated? I understand that from a practical standpoint, the carrier is > going to want the entire crew to be type-rated, but I don't believe this > is the actual FAA requirement. Actually, it depends on the carrier. Some (most?) US airlines do not give their FOs a Type Rating for DOMESTIC flights. However, some (most?) US airlines will type rate their FOs on those aircraft/crews which may fly long international segments with relief pilots. AA certainly does. This is so that someone who is type rated will always be at the controls, such as when it's the Captain's turn to take a break. But you are correct; the FAR does not require the FO to be type rated. 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 Sat Apr 27 01:14:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: Cruise Relief Pilots Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:32 Message-ID: In article , co160@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ron Poole) wrote: >Flight engineers would never be >legally permitted in a "forward facing" seat, but Second Officers could be >if trained. Not quite correct, old son. I have been a Flight Engineer for 20 years, and my seat faces sideways *and* forward, dependant on my mood . =================================================== Pete Finlay in the South of England pete@meads.demon.co.uk paf3@student.open.ac.uk Boeing 747 Senior Flight Engineer =================================================== From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Cruise Relief Pilots Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:32 Message-ID: >I'm confused. In my experience (mostly UA), Flight Engineer and Second >Officer is synonomous. > >Obviously, you have a different meaning for Second Officer. Yeah, I think so. Second Officers are definately the most junior of flight crew (including the flightie) but I'm pretty sure they train to be pilots, whereas Flight Engineers are a dedicated position. QF Second Officers are required to be trained on the Flight Engineers panel (and his/her's various tasks) but it is only for crew relief during flight as far as I'm aware. Simon Craig -- simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:32 Message-ID: In article , Don Stokes wrote: > I understood that the KC-135 also has a bi-lobar cross-section; it's just > not as pronounced since the upper lobe is smaller than on the 707. I > tend to believe this as a circular cross section on would have been very > much more difficult proposition to modify than one that already had the > crease beam (at floor level) taking some of the pressure. This is correct. The 777 is the first jetliner Boeing has built with a circular cross-section. To my knowledge, the only other airliner we've built with a circular cross-section is the 307 Stratocruiser, which combined the 299's (B-17's) wings, engines, and tail surfaces with a pressurized fuselage. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pravelin@us.oracle.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Oracle Corporation. Redwood Shores, CA Reply-To: pravelin@us.oracle.com (Paul Raveling) Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:33 Message-ID: In article , Chris Jardine writes: |> |> In Article, |> write: |> |> > Thus, the 707 is, in fact, a KC-135 derivative, rather than the |> > reverse, although the reverse is very commonly believed. |> |> If you go even further back you will notice that both the KC-135 and 707 were |> based on the DASH 80 in which Boeing risked 1/4 of the company net worth on |> the bet that either commercial airlines or the military would like to buy a |> jet of the type they had. ... Chris's response more nearly conveys the sense of 707/KC-135 development, though it IS true that the first commercial 707's (-120's) took advantage of the military R&D investment in the KC-135. When the -80 was under development I was a youngster in Seattle, already an aviation fan, and the median dad in the area worked for Boeing. Word was getting out no later than 1952 that the Dash-80 was a big deal because it would be the prototype for the first U.S. jet airliner. This came from Boeing employees and from the Seattle news media -- mostly KING, KOMO, & 2 newspapers. My best friend's dad put in a lot of overtime working on the -80, until it flew in 1954; my own dad started working on the early KC-135's and all early 707's, starting with Pan Am #1. What I heard in those years was that Seattle as a whole and apparently Boeing as well, had a priority to make the 707 a successful new airliner. There wase a sense, at least in public, that the KC-135 was a byproduct. Pupating the 707 as a KC-135 was one of those things demanded by economic need in order to develop the new airframe. Of course the KC-135 itself filled an important role and was a worthy product. ______________________ Paul Raveling pravelin@us.oracle.com The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation. -- Oracle policy From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:33 Message-ID: Vince Horan (Horan@bandce.demon.co.uk) wrote: : In article , Mary Shafer : writes : >Are you sure it's the Dash 80? I thought the Dash 80 was what Douglas : >was certifying in the early '80s, : The full designation of the Boeing for runner was 367-80, the McDonnell : airliner is the MD-80 (based on the DC-9). The MD-80 was originally the DC-9-80, later Super 80. As I recall three DC-9-80s prototypes were built, and two of them crashed. The FAA certified the type without hesitation. Go figure. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Hughes Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:33 Message-ID: In article , "C. Marin Faure" writes >In article , etech@deltanet.com >(Eric Chevalier) wrote: >> According to "Boeing 707 & AWACS" by Alwyn T. Lloyd (part of the "In >> Detail and Scale" series published by Aero), the KC-135 was known within >> Boeing as the 717. Does this sound right to the rest of you? I don't >> recall this from any of the other 707 material I've come across. > >Yes, the "official" Boeing designation for the KC-135 is 717. However, >I've never heard that designation used in my 17 years at the company. We >call it the KC-135. > >C. Marin Faure > author, Flying A Floatplane > Can C Main Faure confirm the first batch as model 717-100A, subsequent A models as 717-148, B models as 717-158 and 717-166, and French AF ac as 717-165? What about the E3 production aircraft - what model numbers should correctly apply to them? Seems a good chance to get all this formally recorded! TIA -- Pete Hughes From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pravelin@us.oracle.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Oracle Corporation. Redwood Shores, CA Reply-To: pravelin@us.oracle.com (Paul Raveling) Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:33 Message-ID: In article , Don Stokes writes: |> |> The 707 *was* intended as an airliner, right from day one, but with an eye |> to a military tanker as well. Right. This is a good concise statement of Boeing's intent. The possibility of use as a tanker was a natural business idea since the 707 was conceived while Boeing was building KC-97's at Renton and was beginning production of B-52's at Boeing Field (Seattle) and at Wichita. |> The 707 model number was actually picked for the airliner before the |> Dash-80 (Model 367-80) development was approved. The 707 number was |> withdrawn for the prototype in an attempt to put the competition off the |> scent... Actually my understanding is that it was the government they wanted to put off the scent. The theory was that by using "367" the government would think it's a derivative of the airframes in the StratoCruiser/KC-97/C-97 line, and would be safer to fund than a major new design. About naming of the prototype 707, it's now become common to call it the 367-80. This is a perversion of history, even though it's correct on a technicality. -- Throughout the general public, at least in Seattle, this particular airframe was called just "the 707". That in fact was the number painted onto it. -- Boeing employees, at least those I knew, were more likely to call it "the Dash-80". If they didn't call it that, they called it "the 707". Sometimes it was even called the "707-80". -- On one or two occasions in the 2 or 3 following decades my dad mentioned "did you know that technically it was identified on paperwork as the 367-80"? Now in the last 1-2 decades the aviation-sensitive world has picked up on the paperwork ploy for finding funding. "367-80" simply is not the name that was used in reality for this aircraft. Soap box: The name 367-80 should be left as a footnote of aviation trivia; at least to a lot of us 1950's Seattleites it has no significance. "707" and "Dash-80" meant a major investment in new technology for our country's first jet airliner, "707" was a source of national pride, and the "-80" was the first "707". It was the airliner that we knew could "shrink the world", even before the -80 flew, and the one that Boeing and Seattle bet their butts on to dominate the new way to fly. It makes no sense in interpreting history to call this aircraft anything other than "707" or "-80" unless there's a question about it in Trivial Pursuit. BTW, how many people remember the name of the prototype of DOS on PC's, before Microsoft bought it? ______________________ Paul Raveling pravelin@us.oracle.com The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation. -- Oracle policy From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Does a 747 actually have a drop ceiling? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:34 Message-ID: There's a book with "Cross Sections" in the title that shows the drop ceiling in a widebody very clearly. The drop ceiling in the DC-10 is particularly noticeable when taxiing at O'Hare as the tarmac is just rough enough to excite the structural modes of the aircraft and the various internal elements. The drop ceiling shimmies, while the center bins sway and the side bins bounce. The ceiling also makes a rather high-pitched noise as the plastic panels chatter against each other. A good hard landing will also let you see that the drop ceiling isn't integral to the fuselage, particularly if you're far enough aft of a bulkhead to look up one of the aisles and be able to see the ceiling and the aisle floor at the same time. It's best when doing this, by the way, not to expostulate to your seat mate unless you know that person is interested. Saying "Oh, look how the center bins sway" may evoke a feeling that the sky is falling in an uninformed seat-mate. "Wow, watch that wing tip flex" will get a much more dramatic response, of course. -- 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 Sat Apr 27 01:14:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:34 Message-ID: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) writes on 22 Apr 96: > I am not a "expert" but the auto-pilot of A320/A330/A340 can cope with an > engine shutdown even just after take-off when the auto-pilot is engaged. There is a publicity video from Airbus Industrie entitled "Progress in Control" in which the late chief test pilot for Airbus, Gordon Corps, demonstrates this feature in an A320 by putting the thrust lever on one side to idle a few seconds after take-off and then sitting proudly with his hands off the controls while the automated systems cope with the situation. As Corps points out in the video, the automatic compensation is so efficient that there is no noticeable deviation from flight path or attitude other than a slight side-slip which he corrects using the rudder pedals. Presumably this requires the Flight Management and Guidance System (FMGS), which incorporates auto-pilot and auto-throttle, and the Electrical Flight Control System (EFCS) to act in concert. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sat Apr 27 01:14:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: maxcue@aol.com (MaxCue) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: maxcue@aol.com (MaxCue) Date: 27 Apr 96 01:14:34 Message-ID: I'm only a student pilot at age 40, but have never heard why above-wing engines are not used to increase lift; wouldn't the energy from fuel burn add some lift if even at the expense of some forward thrust? Hope to hear a response from one of you many aero professionals. Thanks, Dave Stone, M.D. aka MaxCue@aol.com (if anyone could ever figure out my screen name it would probably be someone from this group...!) MaxCue@aol.com From kls Wed May 1 11:19:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Thomas O'Toole" Subject: Re: Stretch A340-600 and MD-11 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: War Lord and Imperial Emperor of THE Evil Empire Date: 01 May 96 11:19:53 Message-ID: >I wonder if Boeing will consider building a "B-market" B777-300 when >the B747-400 production line closes? -400 production won't be closing for many years...notice the -200 production only closed a few years ago... From kls Wed May 1 11:19:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cpeters Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: North Bay Network, Inc. news server - not responsible for content Date: 01 May 96 11:19:53 Message-ID: Chanler Childs wrote: > I've heard that the airflow over the wing is much more critical than the > airflow under it, so placing obstructions above the wing can be very bad. > Chanler Childs > cchilds@iastate.edu**************** I would disagree. An engine that exhausts over the wing can enhance lift, will not obstruct much if designed properly, and improve ground clearance. Many turboprops have engines that are above the mean chord line, with the bulk of the prop wash flowing over the wing. Most low wing turboprops have this design as a necessity to provide clearance for the prop. Hope this helps, Carl Peters From kls Wed May 1 11:19:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cpeters Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: North Bay Network, Inc. news server - not responsible for content Date: 01 May 96 11:19:54 Message-ID: One additional point on the negative side. A big reason you will not see over wing engines on low wing transports is noise. The noise created by the hot section efflux shear, and the high pitch of the N1 fan would be much louder in the passenger cabin. More weight in sound insulation or marginally effective active sound reduction would be necessary, and still would not bring levels to what we expect in a modern airliner. Carl From kls Wed May 1 11:19:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tim Hills Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Timbo PLC Date: 01 May 96 11:19:55 Message-ID: >I think that the main reason for underwing poddded engines is ease of maintainance. An engine change on something like a 747 is relatively straightforward, as the engines are only a few feet above the ground, and can be changed in the open air if nescessary. Also a podded engine is designed to detatch in the event of severe damage. Amazingly, this has even worked a few times. Finally, it is aerodynamically advantagous to have the engine thrust line below the longditudenal axis, as a power increase will then result in a nose up pitch. I notice that the USAF finally went for the conventionally engined C17, although I admit that the YC14/15 were good looking designs! -- Tim Hills From kls Wed May 1 11:19:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe Date: 01 May 96 11:19:55 Message-ID: maxcue@aol.com (MaxCue) shaped the electrons to say: >engines are not used to increase lift; wouldn't the energy from fuel burn >add some lift if even at the expense of some forward thrust? Hope to hear >a response from one of you many aero professionals. Thanks, Dave Stone, 1. On high wing military transports is has been used in some contries. 2. However, as on the C-17, underwing engines blowing on flaps is also a viable way to do this. 3. Having engines under the wing makes for much easier maintenance access and replacement. 4. On commercial aircraft, the wing is almost always low mounted for a number of reasons. Mounting the engines over the wing would product entirely unacceptable noise levels in the cabin. There wasa German Bizjet that used this config and that was one of the reasosn it wasn't a major market success. -MZ -- megazone@world.std.com 510-527-0944 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.creative - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. From kls Wed May 1 11:19:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 01 May 96 11:19:55 Message-ID: MaxCue wrote: > > I'm only a student pilot at age 40, but have never heard why above-wing > engines are not used to increase lift; wouldn't the energy from fuel burn > add some lift if even at the expense of some forward thrust? Hope to hear > a response from one of you many aero professionals. Why would you want to "increase lift" with engine thrust, when the wing can do it much more efficiently? Most airplanes don't need their "lift increased" by aux devices - instead, just increase the angle of attack slightly and the wing will take care of everything. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed May 1 11:19:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: person11 Subject: MD 90 airliner Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Date: 01 May 96 11:19:55 Message-ID: Looking for any pilot reports about the new MD 90 jet. Is there a "big difference" between the -80 series and the 90? From kls Wed May 1 11:19:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) Subject: Transporting the Olympic Flame Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 01 May 96 11:19:55 Message-ID: Heard a news story this morning about the Olympic Flame arriving in Los Angeles, from where it will be carried across the country via a series of runners to the Olympic site in Atlanta. The story mentioned that the Flame arrived at LAX on an airliner from Athens and was then carried to the LA Olympic site via helicopter. Did they actually transport an open flame on an airliner? If so, how were they able to get away with doing this, when there are numerous regulations prohibiting the carrying of hazardous/flammable materials aboard aircraft? Was the Flame and it's fuel somehow enclosed in an approved manner such as to render it "safe" ? Was it hand carried and tended to by a passenger, or carried in the baggage hold? Or perhaps it wasn't actually burning during the flight (although that would sort of defeat the purpose of the whole thing). Just wondering how this was actually done. You're not even supposed to carry a BIC lighter on an airplane. From kls Wed May 1 11:19:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: 74137.1301@compuserve.com Subject: Re: Does a 747 actually have a drop ceiling? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CompuServe Incorporated Reply-To: 74137.1301@compuserve.com Date: 01 May 96 11:19:56 Message-ID: >I was travelling with a college orchestra in 1984 on a tour to Europe, >and we flew Virgin Atlantic. (It was just a couple of days after they >started up, actually.) Naturally, no one in the orchestra wanted to >check their musical instruments (the bulky ones like harps were >specially cargoed), so there was a dearth of storage space in the >overhead bins, etc. > >A flight attendant opened a door which swung down out of the ceiling >in the aisle, and put some cellos or some such overhead - it was >fairly sizable. The bin swung down like an attic ladder. As a mechanic on 747 fleet I believe I can speak difinitively on this. There is tons of room above the ceiling. None of it would be usable for storage without major structural modifications. Even then the gross weight of the aircraft would be the limiting factor, right? The space that the musical instruments were put in was probably the old over- head storage area for the life rafts. They are now door mounted and incorporat- ed in the escape slides. We sometimes use these for extra pillow and blanket stowage, however the lfe rafts would have been quite heavy, probably around 100 lbs. That's about the only easily accessible overhead stowage area on a 747 Jim From kls Wed May 1 11:19:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Does a 747 actually have a drop ceiling? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Date: 01 May 96 11:19:56 Message-ID: >>> Does a 747 really have a drop ceiling above the passenger cabin? Is this >>> mostly open space like the movie suggests? I personally don't belive it >>> is, but wanted to ask someone who might actually know this. I appriciate >>> your help. Well, I suppose you could say there is a lot of empty space above the ceiling, but it is not necessarily all usable. Up there are cable runs, a lot of air con ducting and fans, but mostly just supports for the ceiling panels. As for drop down areas, these are only above the main entry doors and are for (or used to be for) lift rafts and other emergency equipment. Simon Craig -- simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Wed May 1 11:19:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: Does a 747 actually have a drop ceiling? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 01 May 96 11:19:56 Message-ID: Mary Shafer (shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote: : It's best when doing this, by the way, not to expostulate to your seat : mate unless you know that person is interested. Saying "Oh, look how : the center bins sway" may evoke a feeling that the sky is falling in : an uninformed seat-mate. "Wow, watch that wing tip flex" will get a : much more dramatic response, of course. In rough air on the 707 you used to be able to watch the engines move in roll, pitch, and yaw relative to the wing. (For some reason it doesn't seem nearly so obvious on the current generation of airliners.) Again it was not advisable to point out the motion to the person in the next seat. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Wed May 1 11:19:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dr. Martin Erdelen" Subject: Re: Does a 747 actually have a drop ceiling? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 01 May 96 11:19:56 Message-ID: On Apr 27, 10:51, Mary Shafer wrote: > The drop ceiling shimmies, while the center bins sway and the side bins bounce. Wonderful poetry - who says the Golden Age of Aviation is over :-) Looking forward to my next DC-10 flight, MArtin Dr. Martin Erdelen -Computing Centre- Internet: erdelen@hrz.uni-essen.de University of Essen Tel.: +49 201 183-2998 D-45117 Essen (Germany) FAX: +49 201 183-3960 From kls Wed May 1 11:19:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: croydon@vianet.on.ca (greg croydon) Subject: Re: Early flap retraction Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chattanooga Data Connection Inc. Date: 01 May 96 11:19:56 Message-ID: In 30 seconds, you would be well thru 400' in the 'dirty thirty'(737), not to mention the fact that many airports now require vertical noise abatement climbs at V2+10! (rediculously low speeds and deck angles to please the nearby residents who were dumb enough to by a house beside a major airport), So the "early" flap retraction was probably normal, if not a bit late!. -- "If God had meant man to fly, He would've bought the ticket" -Billy Connelly From kls Wed May 1 11:19:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Patrick Ware Subject: Re: Early flap retraction Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: SmartWare Date: 01 May 96 11:19:56 Message-ID: Larry Stone wrote: > > In article , showie@uoguelph.ca > (Steve Howie) wrote: > > >I was on a Cdn. Airlines 737 flight from Halifax, Nova Scotia to St. > >John's Newfoundland a couple of years ago. When we took off, it was into a > >strong headwind, and the plane climbed at what seemed like an inordinately > >steep deck angle. I could have sworn I saw the flaps on the trailing edge > >of the wing fully retracting about 30 seconds or so into the climb, which > >seems very early indeed. > > The presence of a head wind shouldn't affect the deck angle. It will > affect your angle of climb over the ground but once airborne, you fly > strictly relative to the air mass. The presence of strong winds would indicate to me that an adverse profile departure might have been being flown by the crew. This procedure is based on a rotation angle of fifteen degrees with flap retraction started at Vref+ 20 kts. followed by a rapid accelleration to 250 kts airspeed. If a flaps 1 take-off was used it would appear that no flap were used at all due to the accelleration of the new 300/500 series aircraft. Speed is life! Patrick Ware Captain B-737 SWA pware@whytel.com From kls Wed May 1 11:19:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dougie@mama.indstate.edu Subject: Re: 747 "Classic" ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 96 11:19:57 Message-ID: I remember reading an article in Boeing Airliner magazine about 747-400 winglets written by an aerodynamicist, in the article (which is a few years old now), and in it he also referred to the 747-100/-200 and even the -300s as "classics". my $.02 doug ----- dougie@mama.indstate.edu, snowd@coral.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie From kls Wed May 1 11:19:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Engine manufacturers Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 01 May 96 11:19:57 Message-ID: About two years ago, I posted a six-part article to the group on the three major engine manufacturers. Over the past few weekends, I have updated the article and "hypertext-ized" it. During the past few weeks, I have learned it the hard way that some of the links are very "dynamic". For example, GE has made serveral major changes to its homepage. If you are interested in the article, the URL is http://www.cris.com/~chuanga/new_engines.shtml I hope all the links work. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Wed May 1 11:19:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: acordell@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Arthur Cordell) Subject: Re: Canadair Regional Jet Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Industry Canada Date: 01 May 96 11:19:57 Message-ID: >I have not flown the RJ but have heard some complaints that due >to the narrow main landing gear it can be a little tricky >in a crosswind. On a slightly different note, what are they like for passengers? Comfort, noise, seat pitch, sense of space, etc. arthur cordell From kls Wed May 1 11:19:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ldrew@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (PETE) Subject: Re: Canadair Regional Jet Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of California, San Diego Date: 01 May 96 11:19:57 Message-ID: In article , tjk wrote: >I am a full-time college student with a love for aviation, so last summer >during my break I worked for Comair in Cincinnati. While there I worked >around and flew on the Canadair Regional jet many times and came to really >like the aircraft. I was wondering how pilots feel about the aircraft. >Is it easy to fly? Any quirks or problems? How does it fly compared to >larger jet aircraft? I fly for an airline that operates the CRJ, and have a bid in for a slot to fly it. It has great thrust to weight ratio, but not blazing fast cruise, because of its high bypass fans. It has a hard wing (no leading edge devices), so it is somewhat runway hungry even though the high thrust to weight helps. Since it is an adaptation of a business jet, the wheel/tire size is on the small side for a 50 seater and they wear out quickly. Also, I've heard that the vref for a no flap landing is only two knots below the max tire speed, makes for a tough check ride. From kls Wed May 1 11:19:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ISFSI Date: 01 May 96 11:19:57 Message-ID: Tom Speer wrote: >I believe that the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine had an article in >the last year or two about a MARS flying boat that is doing fire service >duty in the US. I think that would qualify as one of the great ones. > Forest Industries Flying Tankers (FIFT) Ltd., Port Alberni, B.C., Canada, flies the last two, Hawaii Mars and Philipine Mars, off of Sproat Lake, near Port Alberni. (Or at least they did: My source is "Foam Applications for Wildland & Urban Fire Management," vol 5. No 1, 1993; I don't have the article you refer to, as I don't keep my copies of that magazine.) One Mars was lost by FIFT in 1960 when it hit treetops during a fire, and Typhoon Freida, 1962, damaged another beyond repair; article does not give names of those two boats. From kls Wed May 1 11:19:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 01 May 96 11:19:57 Message-ID: In article Tom Speer writes: >Walter E. Shepherd wrote: > >I believe that the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine had an article in >the last year or two about a MARS flying boat that is doing fire service >duty in the US. I think that would qualify as one of the great ones. The *two* Martin Mars are operated out of Sproat Lake here on Vancouver Island, Canada. regards Brian From kls Wed May 1 11:19:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 01 May 96 11:19:57 Message-ID: > I believe that the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine had an article in > the last year or two about a MARS flying boat that is doing fire > service duty in the US. I think that would qualify as one of the great > ones. Almost - yes they are Mars, but they are up in Canada (BC), on Vancouver Island (Spragg Lake, if I remember correctly). They originally bought the four survivors, but they are down to two, as a result of storm damage and a fatal crash. I sea kayak up in that area and am looking forward to seeing them one day (hopefully NOT while they are on a scoop run, headed my way!) ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed May 1 11:19:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Henry Law Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: None Reply-To: hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Date: 01 May 96 11:19:58 Message-ID: There's one Short Sunderland still in flying condition, but the person who owns it was in financial trouble, I think. I guess it's not a passenger 'boat so it doesn't count. -- Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Wed May 1 11:19:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: budd@csa.bu.edu (Phil Budne) Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 May 96 11:19:58 Message-ID: In article , Tom Speer wrote: >Walter E. Shepherd wrote: >> >>... I've devoured >> most books on the subject and believe that the really great ones (Martin >> 134 and Boeing 314's) are all long gone. .... > >I believe that the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine had an article in >the last year or two about a MARS flying boat that is doing fire service >duty in the US. I think that would qualify as one of the great ones. Here is my re-re-posting about the A&S article; From: budd@csa.bu.edu (Phil Budne) Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: Mars Water Bombers (was Re: Fire Bombers, Minden Nevada) Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc Date: 16 May 1995 14:10:15 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA In article <3ot7fv$ped@thetimes.pixel.kodak.com>, Paul Tomblin wrote: >All this talk of fire bombers got me thinking. I saw the Mars sitting out >there on Sproat Lake on Vancouver Island, and that is one HUGE mother of a >plane. > >Can anybody post a brief summary history of the plane, like what is was built >for and whether it ever saw service as anything other than a water bomber? Here is something I posted in March; From: budd@cs.bu.edu (Phil Budne) Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: C Class Flying Boats -- Martin Mars Date: 1 Mar 1995 07:56:04 GMT In article , Jim Richardson wrote: >pierre@tin-fish.dircon.co.uk (Pierre Chandless) writes: > >>I'm doing some research into various "classic" aircraft & I am tring to >>find out if there are any C Class flying boats (Sunderlands, Shetlands, >>Empire Class etc.) still around. If there are are there any that are still >>airworthy? I heard that there was one in New Zealand in the 70's and there >>are rumours of one in the Virgin Islands in the 60's. > >My understanding is that there are some Sunderlands? flying out of >Victoria as flying firetankers, they can load up by skimming along a >lake, and carry a *lot* of water, but their maintenance costs are >incredible and they may be phased out soon. This is from memory from a >wings (I think) episode a few months back, so caveat emptor. The Octover/November 1993 Smithsonian Air&Space article covers the 2 BIG red Martin Mars water bombers flown in the Vancouver Island area. It has lots of color photos of the planes flying, moored, and on the ground. Original designation was XPB2M-1, designed as a long-range patrol bomber, went into service in 1943 as a general-purpose transport. There were 6 built, one damaged in a 1945 test flight, one burned off Honolulu in 1950. The remaining 4 (named Marianas, Philippine, Hawaii, and Caroline Mars) were retired by the Navy in 1956, and purchased for firefighting in 1959. The Marianas Mars was lost in 1961 fighting a fire, and the Caroline Mars was wrecked by a storm. Specs from the article text; Length: 120ft (two decks) Wingspan: 200ft Beam: 13.5ft Power: 4 2,500HP Wright Cyclones w/ 15ft 4-blade props Capacity: 300+ people or 68,195 lbs cargo (or 7,200 gallons of water) Weight: 162,000lbs (loaded with water?) Height: 44ft (tail above water line) The largest problem mentioned in the article was getting props, the same type is used by 749 Connies. They also fly Grumman Geese as lead aircraft. From kls Wed May 1 11:19:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Walter Shepherd Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: K2ZPA Date: 01 May 96 11:19:58 Message-ID: Tom Speer wrote: >Walter E. Shepherd wrote: >> >>... I've devoured >> most books on the subject and believe that the really great ones (Martin >> 134 and Boeing 314's) are all long gone. .... > >I believe that the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine had an article in >the last year or two about a MARS flying boat that is doing fire service >duty in the US. I think that would qualify as one of the great ones. It certainly qualifies as one of the great flying boats for sure, but I was referring to those built for luxury (i.e., state room) passenger service. I believe the Martin Mars was built for military service at or near the end of WWII. Since reading that Air & Space article, I've been saying an extra prayer at bed time... hopin' those fire folks take good care of 'em. BTW: the fire duty was in British Columbia, not the US. From kls Wed May 1 11:19:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Callisto Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Corinthian Internet Services P/L, Sydney, Australia. Date: 01 May 96 11:19:58 Message-ID: "John O'Brien" wrote: >As airliners are all beginning to look alike and >are hard to distinguish from each other, at least in >the air at a distance, I was wondering >why some manufacturers still make T-Tailed aircraft >and some don't. I know that in the late 70's the first >designs of the 757 had a T-Tail but that this was later >replaced by the normal fin and lower tail-plane. The main reason there are T-Tailed aircraft is because of rear positioning of the engines. That was the reason aircraft such as the VC-10, 727, DC-9 originally had them. >I find it difficult to distinguish at a glance an A330 >from a 767 / 777, a 737-400 from an A320, an A310 from a 757 >or TU-204. Will there ever be another T-Tailed airliner >after the current ones become obsolete ? I know its all >economics now but I liked the days when VC10s, Tridents, >DC-8s,707s all looked distinctive and had... >well a bit of character ! I don't agree with that :) Even though we don't have such a huge variety of aircraft in Australian service, it is still very easy to distinguish between types. Perhaps it is just me, but all I will mistake is occasionally a exact type - mistaking a 737-100 for a -200 (rare - I know who owns what usually). But I do wonder how you get confused between an A310 and a 757 or TU-204 when one is a widebdy and the others aren't From kls Wed May 1 11:19:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: philipp@westnet.com (Ralf Philipp) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: WestNet Internet Services Date: 01 May 96 11:19:59 Message-ID: >Also some more modern airliners have T-Tails, >(Bae-146 or Avrojet, MD-80/MD-90), ATR 40, (I think thats >what this prop-plane is called), Fokker-100. It really isn't an airliner, but the new C-17 has a T-Tail. I suspect this is 'cause it's a cargo aircraft, though. >I find it difficult to distinguish at a glance an A330 >from a 767 / 777, a 737-400 from an A320, an A310 from a 757 >or TU-204. I've found that the fastest way to tell if an aircraft is a Boeing or an Airbus is the top of the rear fuselage. If the top slopes down as towards the end of the aircraft, it's a Boeing; if it goes straight (parallell to the ground), it's an Airbus. |Ralf Philipp |Tangerine Dream fanatic |philipp@westnet.com |http://www.westnet.com/~philipp/ralf.html |uses StdDisclaimer; From kls Wed May 1 11:19:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ISFSI Date: 01 May 96 11:19:59 Message-ID: "John O'Brien" wrote: >As airliners are all beginning to look alike and >are hard to distinguish from each other, at least in >the air at a distance, I was wondering >why some manufacturers still make T-Tailed aircraft >and some don't. I know that in the late 70's the first >designs of the 757 had a T-Tail but that this was later >replaced by the normal fin and lower tail-plane. > According to Peter Bowers, _Boeing Aircraft Since 1916_, the original design studies for the 757 was to be the 727-300, which, after a great deal of study, was abandoned and replaced by the 757 concept, which was, indeed, to have used the T-tail of the 27; as studies continued, the 57 kept veering further and further from the intended use of many of the 27's structural and design features. When the 57 studies reached the point of designing an entirely new wing/engine combination, the plane began to resemble the 767 more than the 727, and the T-tail was discarded. From kls Wed May 1 11:19:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 01 May 96 11:19:59 Message-ID: In article , "John O'Brien" wrote: > I find it difficult to distinguish at a glance an A330 > from a 767 / 777, a 737-400 from an A320, an A310 from a 757 > or TU-204. Will there ever be another T-Tailed airliner > after the current ones become obsolete ? I know its all > economics now but I liked the days when VC10s, Tridents, > DC-8s,707s all looked distinctive and had... > well a bit of character ! There are some definite identifying characteristics I use to tell one from the other, but then I'm around them a lot. Things like flap track fairings and the flight deck window line are two things I use to tell a Boeing from an Airbus if all I see is part of the plane. The name of the game in airliner design is efficiency, and we're all playing in the same sandbox. Our air is the same as Aibus' air, so our designs tend to end up being fairly similar. The big difference is in the refinements. The 777 wing is somewhat superior to the A/330/340 wing in that it will allow quite a family of future airplanes to be based on it, from high gross weight to stretched, to short range, etc. Airbus is pretty much at the limit now of what they can do with their wing. If they want to increase gross weight a lot, they'll have to come up with a new wing, not an inexpensive proposition. I suspect the only time you'll see a radical change in the current design of commerical airplanes is if and when a new fuel is developed to enable planes to fly a lot faster and/or a lot higher. This will require different aerodynamic shapes than we use now. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed May 1 11:19:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: terenz@neutron.reno.nv.us Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Great Basin Internet Services, Reno, NV Reply-To: terenz@neutron.reno.nv.us Date: 01 May 96 11:19:59 Message-ID: "John O'Brien" wrote: >As airliners are all beginning to look alike and >are hard to distinguish from each other, at least in >the air at a distance, I was wondering >why some manufacturers still make T-Tailed aircraft >and some don't. I know that in the late 70's the first >designs of the 757 had a T-Tail but that this was later >replaced by the normal fin and lower tail-plane. I think it's a function of aerodynamics and economy. R/C gliders that are built for manuevring performance often have T-tails while those built for maximum lift (for scavenging thermals) have a fortizonatl stab inline with the wings. The horizontal stab riding in the main wing's shadow creates less drag and thus probably is more fuel economical. >Also some more modern airliners have T-Tails, >(Bae-146 or Avrojet, MD-80/MD-90) ^^^^^^^^^^^ Descendant of a DC-9 so it probably would have been too expensive to redeisng considering the engines are iin the way. >, ATR 40, (I think thats >what this prop-plane is called), Fokker-100. ^^^^^^^^^^ Descendant of the F-28 >I find it difficult to distinguish at a glance an A330 >from a 767 / 777, a 737-400 from an A320, an A310 from a 757 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Easy. the 757 is long and skinny and the engines almost look as big as the fuse! The A310 looks more like the A300s and A330s (same fuse cross-section) and a scaled up 737 >or TU-204. Will there ever be another T-Tailed airliner >after the current ones become obsolete ? I know its all >economics now but I liked the days when VC10s, Tridents, ^^^^^^^^ could be confused for a B-727 as a BAC 1-11 could be confused for a DC-9. >DC-8s,707s all looked distinctive and had... ^^^^^^^^^ These two and the Convair jets looked the same, except the 707 had that probe on top of the tail. >well a bit of character ! And let's not forget the Dassault Mercure that looked like a B-737 9don't think I've ever seen one). From kls Wed May 1 11:19:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jay Selman Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Avion Foto Date: 01 May 96 11:19:59 Message-ID: "John O'Brien" wrote: >As airliners are all beginning to look alike and >are hard to distinguish from each other, at least in >the air at a distance, I was wondering >why some manufacturers still make T-Tailed aircraft >and some don't. I know that in the late 70's the first >designs of the 757 had a T-Tail but that this was later >replaced by the normal fin and lower tail-plane. >Will there ever be another T-Tailed airliner >after the current ones become obsolete ? I know its all >economics now but I liked the days when VC10s, Tridents, >DC-8s,707s all looked distinctive and had... >well a bit of character ! > I could be wrong but I believe the T-tail evolved in modern airliners as a result of keeping the horizontal stabilizer out of the exhaust path of planes built with rear-mounted engines. Offhand, I'd reckon to say that all airliners with engines on the aft fuselage have t-tails, or at least some variation of that. As for turboprops with t-tails, again, I imagine that the idea is to keep the stab out of harm's way from engine exhaust. On that subject, a notable exception is the Shorts 330/360. Does anyone know if the engine exhaust hitting the horizontal stab causes any structural problems?? -- Jay Selman unclejay@aol.com Standard disclaimers apply Visit the AVION FOTO Home Page at: http://users.aol.com/avfoto/index.htm From kls Wed May 1 11:20:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: auser@somewhere.com (NOYDB) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Tempest, Inc. Date: 01 May 96 11:20:00 Message-ID: In article "John O'Brien" wrote: > and some don't. I know that in the late 70's the first > designs of the 757 had a T-Tail but that this was later > replaced by the normal fin and lower tail-plane. > Since the 757 is the replacement for the 727 airframe you are probably referring to an early test bed or proof of concept airframe. The 757 production aircraft has always been twin engines on the wing and therefore no need for the T-Tail as you refer to it. With stronger, quieter and more efficient engines available I seen no technical or economic reason for a future design for a T-Tail jet airframe. If the engines are mounted on the wings the aircraft is considerably quieter than if the enignes are attached to the fuselage. Perhaps some turbo-prop version.... From kls Wed May 1 11:20:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Marin gone for awhile. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 01 May 96 11:20:00 Message-ID: I will be gone for the month of May. While the value of my contribution to this group may be questionable, I don't want anyone to think I've disappeared due to a lack of interest in the posts or posters. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Thu May 9 12:50:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: I speak for nobody but myself Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Date: 09 May 96 12:50:13 Message-ID: According to today's (8 May 1996) UK edition of the Financial Times, "Virgin Atlantic has become the third airline to express a strong interest in buying a double decker 'super-jumbo' aircraft capable of carrying more than 500 passengers" (p. 7). The report also states that estimated development cost for Boeing's 747-600X is $2 billion, while Airbus would have to develop an all new aircraft at a cost of $8-12 billion. -- Could anyone clear this up for me? Does the 747-600X use the same wing as the current (747-400) model or would Boeing develop a new wing? Please reply by email to , I'll post a summary. Cheers, -- Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk [Personal Page] [Department] From kls Thu May 9 12:50:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 09 May 96 12:50:13 Message-ID: >Could anyone clear this up for me? Does the 747-600X use the same wing as >the current (747-400) model or would Boeing develop a new wing? It uses an entirely new wing. There's a good summary of Boeing's plans for the 747-600X (and 747-500X) starting on p. 32 of AW&ST from February 7th. It would have a new wing with a span of just over 242 feet, up from 211.4 feet on the 747-400 and -400F or 195.7 feet on the older 747 models. From the drawing, it appears that it will not have winglets (consistent with Boeing's view, espoused during the design of the 777, that they're not necessary for new designs) but if will need a new wing/fuselage fairing. New main landing gear (though still four posts with four wheels each) together with the new wing will support a MGTOW of up to 1,030,000 lbs, compared to 875,000 lbs (with 890,000 in development) for the 747-400. The nose gear gets bigger tires but is otherwise unmodified. The design also includes a taller, 747SP-type vertical tail, and a new horizontal tail with an increased span of 87.5 feet. Electrical systems will be enhanced, with a 120 kVA generator on each engine. (Gotta power all the in-seat slot machines, arcades, and whatnot!) Upgrades to the air conditioning packs will support the higher loads of the -600X or longer block times of the -500X. The 747-600X fuselage is stretched 342 in. from the 747-400, including a 220 in. plug just ahead of a relocated door 2, an 80 in. plug behind the wing, and a 22 in. and 20 in. plug at the aft portion of the wing root. Range would be about 7,200 nm, comparable to the 747-400, with a full payload. Passenger capacity is 503, about 20% more than the -400, plus about 14 metric tons of cargo in addition to baggage. The 747-500X appears to be a shrunken -600X more than a stretched -400, which makes sense since they share the same wing and other enhancements. The foreward plug is reduced to 100 in. and the 80 in. aft plug is eliminated entirely; the plugs in the wing root region are retained. Total length would be 122 in. greater than the 747-400. Range would be in excess of 8,200 nm with a full payload of 444 passengers in a "typical tri-class configuration." Cruise speed is targeted to be M 0.855, similar to existing 747s. (AW&ST reports M 0.86 for the 747-400, M 0.85 for the -300 and SP, and M 0.84 for the other 747 models. Apparently the extended upper deck helps the -300 a bit, and the winglets add a bit more on the -400.) The biggest point of controversy seems to be the cockpit. Boeing wants to keep the foreward section of the new models the same as the 747-400 to minimize costs. Some airlines are asking for cockpits more like that of the 777, possibly going as far as having a common type rating. Given Boeing's track record, I would bet on Boeing's capitu- lation to the requests for the updated design. -- 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 May 9 12:50:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tom Speer Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Date: 09 May 96 12:50:14 Message-ID: Tim Hills wrote: > > >I think that the main reason for underwing poddded engines is ease of > maintainance... > Finally, it is aerodynamically advantagous to have the engine thrust > line below the longditudenal axis, as a power increase will then result > in a nose up pitch. I notice that the USAF finally went for the > conventionally engined C17, although I admit that the YC14/15 were good > looking designs! Besides the aerodynamic aspects, the use of pod mounted engines ahead and below the wings (first used on the B-47, I believe) was a major advance in raising the flutter speeds of jet transports. The mass balance provided by the engines allowed the wings to be lighter and longer, while controlling the flexibility. I doubt that causing a pitch up with the application of power is a major design driver in the positioning of engines. I know of no flying qualities requirement for this. Even if were required, the aircraft speed stability may result in a pitch up even for engines mounted some distance above the c.g. The YC-15 had straight turbojets on pylons, which is about as conventional an engine arrangement as you can get. What was unique was that the flaps were not cut out behind the engines so that they were externally blown. The C-17's externally blown flaps are a direct descendent of the YC-15's. The YC-14, YC-15, C-17, QSRA, and Augmentor Wing (AWJSRA) are all examples of powered lift aircraft. Two blow their exhaust above the wing, two below the wing, and the AWJSRA sent 60% of its thrust through the wing. All are viable configurations for STOL performance while still retaining the capability to cruise efficiently at high subsonic speeds, and both the upper surface blowing and externally blown flaps have seen operational service. Maybe someday, if they can achieve critical mass, De Havilland can finally put the augmentor wing into service, as well. TS From kls Thu May 9 12:50:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 09 May 96 12:50:14 Message-ID: >The YC-14, YC-15, C-17, QSRA, and Augmentor Wing (AWJSRA) are all >examples of powered lift aircraft. While not really advertised as such, Lockheed's Electra (and its Navy descendant, the P-3 Orion) and C-103 Hercules also achieve some of their rather remarkable takeoff performance from powered lift. Take a look at just how much of the wing is in the propwash of those four enormous propellors! -- 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 May 9 12:50:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gdmckinn@ccnet.com (Gary McKinnis) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CCnet Communications (510-988-7140 guest) Date: 09 May 96 12:50:14 Message-ID: Tim Hills writes: >I notice that the USAF finally went for the conventionally engined C17, >although I admit that the YC14/15 were good looking designs! I don't know what you mean by "conventionally engined," except where the YC-14 is concerned, because both the YC-15 and C-17 have similar engine installation placements, where the thrust blows directly into the lowered flaps. In fact, the C-17 looks a *lot* like the YC-15, right down to the borrowed, forward-fueslage section of the DC-10. My $0.02. Gary From kls Thu May 9 12:50:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: J.M.Butt@aeromech.salford.ac.uk (The Time Technician) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Salford Date: 09 May 96 12:50:14 Message-ID: One minor point, passengers would generally be less willing to travel on an aircraft with above-wing mounted engines, it would be, what's the term, less aesthetically pleasing? People are used to seeing dropped engines(in the West, anyway), and would generally be less trusting of the aircraft if the engines were mounted above the wings. As for Mr Peters' comments about noise, this is true, but only for low winged aircraft. High-wings would partially shield the noise and actually make quite a significant difference, compared to dropped engines, and also have much better aerodynamics, in that form drag is significantly reduced. The maintenance factor comes into question then, though. Upper-surface blowing does actually increase the Lift Coeeficient of the aerofoil, which could come in handy for short runways etc, but has been stated by another user, jet flaps have the same effect, with much easier maintenenance for the dropped engine. Unfortunately, there is very little information currently available on the effects of upper-surface blowing, no real study, to my knowledge, has ever been undertaken. I have just been involved in a design group for a new aircraft, and we did actually use a high wing with upper-surface blowing, but this was mainly because of the market we were aiming at. We 'approximated' the effects due to lack of any real information on how to do it. Might make a good thesis for someone...... Like any other design, it does have its advantages - ground clearance, reduced noise, improved performance etc (as well as disadvantages). See ya. The Time Technician E-Mail:AMH269@news.salford.ac.uk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Time is a linear Continuem; Earth's angular velocity reduces - We live in the Future. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From kls Thu May 9 12:50:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 09 May 96 12:50:14 Message-ID: >As for Mr Peters' comments about noise, this is true, but only for low >winged aircraft. High-wings would partially shield the noise ... Good point. Also, besides cabin noise, there's the very sensitive issue of noise on the ground, below the flight path. McDonnell Douglas has made a lot of noise (sorry, I couldn't resist!) about how quiet the MD-90 is on the ground. While the IAE V2500 engines and some careful work on the nacelle and pylon design are the major sources of noise reduction, MD also notes that the aft-mounted engines use the wing as a partial noise shield. -- 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 May 9 12:50:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: xprize@aol.com (Xprize) Subject: X Prize May 18th Gala Debut -- Aviation Extravaganza Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: xprize@aol.com (Xprize) Date: 09 May 96 12:50:15 Message-ID: Dear Aviation Enthusiast: You are invited to attend a very special aviation event! ************************************************* ON MAY 18TH, YOU ARE INVITED TO BEGIN THE ULTIMATE HUMAN ADVENTURE ... THE X PRIZE "Enabling Human Ingenuity and Adventure in Space!" ************************************************* On May 20th, 1927, The Spirit of St. Louis carried Charles Lindbergh from New York to Paris and into the hearts and minds of the world. On May 18th, 1996, all eyes will be on St. Louis again. "The X Prize is an exciting program which will do for astronautics what Charles Lindbergh did for aviation in 1927." - Mr. Arthur C. Clarke, Author & Scientist "If the X Prize is half as successful as the aviation competitions have been, it will serve as an important milestone in opening the space frontier to commercial passengers and space tourism." - Mr. Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator On May 18th, the most ambitious prize in aviation and space history will be announced at the St. Louis Science Center. The X Prize. A multi-million dollar international space prize which will shape the future of commercial space travel for private citizens. Scientists, explorers, astronauts, and business leaders from around the world will convene in St. Louis -- by invitation -- to take part in this historic announcement. Please join us. THE X PRIZE DINNER COMMITTEE [Co-Chairmen] Dr. Buzz Aldrin Apollo 11 Astronaut Chairman, National Space Society Mr. Erik Lindbergh Grandson of Charles Lindbergh Pilot [Astronauts Attending May 18th Event] Dr. Buzz Aldrin, Gemini 12, Apollo 11 Captain Daniel C. Brandenstein Colonel Gerald P. Carr, Skylab 4 Mr. Robert J. Cenker Dr. Mary L. Cleave Colonel Richard O. Covey, STS 51-I, STS 26, STS 38, STS 61 Mr. R. Walter Cunningham, Apollo 7 Dr. Samuel T. Durrance, STS 35 Dr. Owen K. Garriott, Skylab 3, STS 9 Dr. Linda M. Godwin Mr. Richard J. Hieb Dr. Byron Lichtenberg, STS 9, STS 45 Captain Jon A. McBride, STS 41-G Col. Steven R. Nagel Colonel William R. Pogue, Skylab 4 Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 General Thomas P. Stafford, Gemini 6, Gemini 9, Apollo 10 Dr. Charles Walker, STS 41-D, STS 51-D, STS 61-B Dr. Taylor G. Wang, STS 51-B You are invited to join astronauts, explorers, aerospace and business leaders at a black-tie gala event on May 18th. The X Prize is endorsed by the following Space Organizations: * Aero Club of France * Aerospace States Association * Association of Space Explorers * The Explorers Club * Federation Aeronautique Internationale * National Space Society * National Aeronautics & Space Administration * Society of Experimental Test Pilots * Space Frontier Foundation * U.S. Space Foundation [EVENT DETAILS] Location: St. Louis Science Center, St. Louis, MO. Cocktails: 6:30 p.m. Dinner & Event: 8:00 p.m. Price: $500 per ticket* $4,000 per table of eight (two members of the New Spirit of St. Louis Committee and/or astronauts will join your table for a total of ten). Dress: Black-Tie Valet Parking *Approximately $400 of the $500 is tax-deductible Please RSVP no later than May 10, 1996. For more infomation, please call 314 - 982 - 9172. or e-mail to Xprize@aol.com To RSVP: Please send the following information: Name:_______________________________________ Organization:_________________________________ Address:_____________________________________ City:_______________State: ________ Zip: ________ Tel: ____________________ Number of Tickets Requested: ______ I have enclosed a check for: $______ ($500 per seat) Please seat the following guests at my table: (1) {include your name} (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Please send check and above information to: The X Prize Foundation, 200 N. Broadway, Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO USA 63102. Tel: 314-982-9172 X PRIZE GENERAL INFORMATION: The X Prize has been created to educate the public about space tourism and to accelerate the development of low-cost, reusable launch vehicles and thereby jump-start the creation of a space tourism industry. Prizes work. In the 1920's and 1930's hundreds of aviation prizes pushed the envelope of speed, distance, endurance and safety in the fledgling aeronautical industry. In 1926 and 1927 alone, more than $100 million worth or prizes (in 1996 dollars) were offered to challenge the flying community. Today, only 70 years later, aviation is a global $250 billion industry. The X Prize follows in the long-standing tradition of aviation prizes. This is the first-ever human spaceflight prize. The multi-million cash prize will be awarded to the first group to privately build and demonstrate a spaceship which can carry at least three people to a 100 km (sub-orbital) altitude on a repeatable basis. Details of the X Prize rules will be announced on May 18th. It is the intent of the X Prize Foundation, that those who compete for and win the X Prize will soon become modern-day heroes and transportation innovators. The X Prize will inspire today's greatest entrepreneurs. From kls Thu May 9 12:50:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dkj@mindspring.com (David Keith Johnson) Subject: Re: Transporting the Olympic Flame Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Reply-To: dkj@mindspring.com Date: 09 May 96 12:50:15 Message-ID: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) wrote: > Did they actually transport an open flame on an airliner? If >so, how were they able to get away with doing this, when there are >numerous regulations prohibiting the carrying of hazardous/flammable >materials aboard aircraft? Was the Flame and it's fuel somehow enclosed in >an approved manner such as to render it "safe" ? Was it hand carried and >tended to by a passenger, or carried in the baggage hold? Or perhaps it >wasn't actually burning during the flight (although that would sort of >defeat the purpose of the whole thing). If you check out my web page at.... http://www.mindspring.com/~dkj/daltoc.html I have a few facts on the engineering and authorization involved in the transport of the Olympic Flame. Dave dkj@mindspring.com From kls Thu May 9 12:50:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: Transporting the Olympic Flame Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Your Organization Date: 09 May 96 12:50:15 Message-ID: > Did they actually transport an open flame on an airliner? If >so, how were they able to get away with doing this, when there are >numerous regulations prohibiting the carrying of hazardous/flammable >materials aboard aircraft? Was the Flame and it's fuel somehow enclosed in >an approved manner such as to render it "safe" ? Was it hand carried and >tended to by a passenger, or carried in the baggage hold? Or perhaps it >wasn't actually burning during the flight (although that would sort of >defeat the purpose of the whole thing). It wasn't too long ago that any passenger could carry his own flame aboard any airliner....... it was called a cigarette lighter. This was considered a safe practice. Smoking was banned from U.S. commercial flights not because of unsafe flames from lighters, but from complaints from the smoke. Hazardous materials are regularly transported aboard commercial airliners, such as dry ice and AIDS tainted blood samples. These types of items have restrictions placed on them, but they are not prohibited. I am sure the small Olympic flame fell under this criteria. From kls Thu May 9 12:50:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: musjnd@panther.Gsu.EDU (Jonathan Neal Deitch) Subject: Re: Transporting the Olympic Flame Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Georgia State University Date: 09 May 96 12:50:15 Message-ID: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes: > Did they actually transport an open flame on an airliner? If >so, how were they able to get away with doing this, when there are >numerous regulations prohibiting the carrying of hazardous/flammable >materials aboard aircraft? The Flame was encased in a safety lantern (and attached to a bulkhead) for it's trip to the US on Delta's brand new Centennial MD-11 ... All, I'm sure, within Billy Payne's line of sight for the whole trip ... Cool paint job on that aircraft, that's for sure ! - Jonathan "Braves Win ! Braves Win ! Braves Win ! Braves Win !" -- Skip Caray (1992) We are NOT "Loserville" anymore !!! -- musjnd@panther.gsu.edu jdeitch@gsu.edu http://www2.gsu.edu/~musjnd Roddenberry, Asimov, Henson, Dr. Seuss, Mel Blanc, Friz Freleng ... Sigh ... From kls Thu May 9 12:50:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu (Richard N. Rea) Subject: Re: Transporting the Olympic Flame Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 09 May 96 12:50:15 Message-ID: In article mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes: > Heard a news story this morning about the Olympic Flame arriving >in Los Angeles, from where it will be carried across the country via a >series of runners to the Olympic site in Atlanta. The story mentioned >that the Flame arrived at LAX on an airliner from Athens and was then >carried to the LA Olympic site via helicopter. > Did they actually transport an open flame on an airliner? If >so, how were they able to get away with doing this, when there are [Snip!] The olympic flame isn't lit until the runners arrive with the little hand-held torch; Don't confuse it with the torch that the runners will be carrying across the country. I'm not sure, but the actual olympic "flame" seems to be a gas torch, so there isn't a fuel source until it is connected to the local supply. From kls Thu May 9 12:50:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tburleson@ccmail.crc.com (Thomas H Burleson) Subject: Re: Transporting the Olympic Flame Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Coleman Research Corp. Date: 09 May 96 12:50:16 Message-ID: In article mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes: >snip >Olympic Flame >snip I just got off a Delta MD11 Friday 4May and they showed a video clip about the special Delta aircraft that transported the flame. It looked like a normal MD11 with a special paint scheme and a bulkhead mounted lantern (like a coal miner's lamp) in the passenger compartment. The video went on to say the aircraft would be retained in this configuration for some time (1 year??) and used inregular service so people could see it. HTH From kls Thu May 9 12:50:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rwbaker@airmail.net ( ) Subject: DC Voltages Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: customer of Internet America Date: 09 May 96 12:50:16 Message-ID: I have a question about the 28VDC used on commercial aircraft. Are there any special or unusual characteristics about this current? I have a need to take the 28VDC and convert it to 12VDC in an aircraft, any ideas? Thanks in advance for any help. Rick Baker rwbaker@airmail.net From kls Thu May 9 12:50:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk (Martin) Subject: A340 - needed a computer re-boot at gate (long) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Staffs University, UK Date: 09 May 96 12:50:16 Message-ID: Hi, I thought you might be interested in a recent experience I had on an A340 about to depart on an 11 hour flight to LHR. It wasn't a US airline, but that's all I'll say about their ID. We boarded at ETA-30 minutes, and the door was closed at eta-5. We then sat there for 20 minutes before the captain announced "a very minor technical fault with a fuel valve which will take 15 minutes to sort out". 20 minutes later: "just about to replace a valve, it will take 30 minutes" 20 minutes later I sensed the APU stop, and the air conditioning stopped. 5 minutes later: "we need to turn of all the electrical power in the aicraft so that the valve can be connected. All of the lights will go off for about 5 minutes. Please get ready to sit in the dark, and don't worry". I said to my wife that, if I didn't know better, I'd think they were going to reboot the computers! So, the power goes off. (There must be an emergency backup battery, as the emergency lights on the floor came on, and some dim overhead lights). Anyway, 5 minutes later the power came on, the apu started and we pushed back and departed. When I visited the flight deck the pilot said that "a valve in the refuelling system seemed to be stuck open and there was an ECAM warning. They tried to reset the valve manually, but it WAS closed, and it was a erroneous ecam warning that we couldn't reset. So we had to power down the complete aircraft, to reboot the computer and remove the spurious error message, which always works". I asked about the FMS routing and the IRS allignment, and for some reason they have backup power so they didn't loose their 'memory' during the power down. So no need to re-allign or re-enter the route. I thought the above was both interesting and amusing! I wonder why they didn't pull the CBs for the ecam, aids, bite or whatever actually needed rebooting? M.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk From kls Thu May 9 12:50:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Aircraft Order Update (May 5, 95) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 09 May 96 12:50:17 Message-ID: Comments: The Airbus total is consistent with Airbus' latest press release, except mine has one more A340 and one less A320 than Airbus' number. China Eastern's 3 A340s are the ones previously assigned for China Southern by CASC (so are Air China's 3 A340s). So, Airbus is really double counting the order. The URL for this update is http://www.cris.com/~chuanga/order_book.shtml *** 1996 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (May 05, 96) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N|VG | 3C | | | N|MU | 3| | | N|CASC | 30U | | | N|CSA | | 10 | | |SR | 3C 2C | | 2P| |PR | 12C 8G 4| | | |BQ | | 2 | | |GA | | | 1G| |McD(for World Airways) | | 2P| |JD | | | 6I | |ILFC | 4R | 3R | | |ILFC | 3P | 5P | | |ILFC | 3U 6U 3U 7G 8| 10G | | |CA | 3| | | |NW | 20C | | | |TW | | 10P | | |DL | | 12P | | |8Q | 1U | | | |KL | | 2G | | |GECAS | | 20 2 80 5G | | |UA | | 2P | | |MH | | 10P 15R | | |PR | | 1G | | |GATX | 9C | | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 0 9 70 13 22 18| 32 2 80 0 15 10 12 38 0| 6 5| | 1996 | A I R B U S ( 132 ) | B O E I N G ( 189 ) |MD( 11)| Total by Engine Manufacturers |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| |BMW/RR | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |CFMI | 0 6 34 9 0 18| 32 2 80 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |GEAE | 0 0 0 0 15 0| 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 15 0| 0 1| |IAE | 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 6 0| |P&W | 0 0 0 0 3 0| 0 0 0 0 12 10 12 5 0| 0 4| |R-R | 0 0 0 0 4 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0| 0 0| |Unknown| 0 3 36 4 0 0| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0 0| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 0 9 70 13 22 18| 32 2 80 0 15 10 12 38 0| 6 5| | 1996 | A I R B U S ( 132 ) | B O E I N G ( 189 ) |MD( 11)| Announced Letters of Intent |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| |AY | | 4U | | |Pacific Western | 20 | | |MS | 4U | | | |TG | 5G 4P | 4 2G | | |PR | | 8G | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 5 9 70 17 26 18| 56 2 80 0 25 14 12 38 0| 6 5| | 1996 | A I R B U S ( 145 ) | B O E I N G ( 227 ) |MD( 11)| 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@cris.com) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. 5 Airline Code: 8Q - Onur Air AY - Finnair BQ - EuroBelgian CA - Air China DL - Delta GA - Garuda JD - Japan Air Sys KL - KLM MH - Malaysia MS - EgyptAir MU - China Eastern NW - Northwest PR - Philippine SR - Swissair TG - Thai Int'l TW - Trans World UA - United VG - Eurowings From kls Thu May 9 12:50:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sdmorris@mindspring.com (Scott D. Morris) Subject: MD-80 vs. Super-80 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Organization? Me? Organized! Date: 09 May 96 12:50:17 Message-ID: I've always wondered why American Airlines chooses to confuse things by referring to the MD-80 as a "Super-80". Yes before the MD-80 was known by that name it was the DC-9, Super 80, but that changed years ago. American needs to get in line with the times and become consistant with other carriers. Any comments?? Regards, Scott Scott D. Morris - Atlanta, GA, USA sdmorris@mindspring.com Mental floss prevents moral decay. From kls Thu May 9 12:50:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-80 vs. Super-80 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 09 May 96 12:50:17 Message-ID: >Yes before the MD-80 was known by that name it was the DC-9, Super >80, but that changed years ago. American needs to get in line with >the times and become consistant with other carriers. American calls some of their aircraft Luxuryliners. Eastern called their L-1011s Whisperliners. United departure boards at gates still announce "A320 Friendship Service" (substitute the appropriate type). It's all called marketing. Super 80 sounds better than MD-80, so American uses it. (In fact, as discussed in this newsgroup in the past, American does not operate many MD-80s -- according to the type certificate, most of their "MD-80s" are in fact DC-9-82s, though some are DC-9-83s for which I believe MD-83 is an FAA-approved alias. Thus, to be truly pedantic, Super 80 may be a more accurate moniker for most of the MD twinjets than MD-80.) -- 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 May 9 12:50:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Keith Tucker Subject: Re: Canadair Regional Jet Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: achilles.net Date: 09 May 96 12:50:18 Message-ID: Arthur Cordell wrote: > > >I have not flown the RJ but have heard some complaints that due > >to the narrow main landing gear it can be a little tricky > >in a crosswind. > > On a slightly different note, what are they like for passengers? > Comfort, noise, seat pitch, sense of space, etc. I have used the RJ on Air Canada's ATL-YYZ route twice. Equates well to a slightly miniaturised MD-80 - ie. very good ride. I also had the opportunity to take a CL-600 from Sheerwater, NS to Uplands (YOW) - very similar ride to the longer coupled RJ. As an aside; Air Canada operates with a single cabin crew member which means you get a Purser;so, well trained too. -- Keith Tucker; ktucker@achilles.net who would rather be boating ! From kls Thu May 9 12:50:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dauslan@bgnet.bgsu.edu (Dan Auslander) Subject: Re: Canadair Regional Jet Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Bowling Green State University Date: 09 May 96 12:50:18 Message-ID: > On a slightly different note, what are they like for passengers? >Comfort, noise, seat pitch, sense of space, etc. Flew one on Comair a few months ago, and loved it. since it's 2-2, even in a window you're only 1 seat from the iasle, and the fact that it only carries about 50 made loading a breeze. Space seemed at least as ample as steerage on any other narrowbody, and the windows seem rather large (I don't know for sure, this may just be an illusion of the smaller cabin diameter). Dan Auslander Private Pilot, ASEL-IA Email: dauslan@bgnet.bgsu.edu WWW: http://pizza.bgsu.edu/~dauslan/main.htm From kls Thu May 9 12:50:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Snow Subject: B727 Page Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 May 96 12:50:18 Message-ID: I am beginning to set up a page for the B727, something along the lines of the L1011 page. It should be operational this summer. One goal I have is to have a complete production run on there, showing last known disposition for each of the 1832 727s built. Yeah, big project. What I request is that if anyone has any cool B727 pictures that are on a webpage somewhere, to email the URL to me. What I want to have is basic aircraft specs, production run, aircraft accidents and incidents, some awesome B727 pictures, and anything else I might think up. Anyone know if the JP fleets or someother publication like that is on-line somewhere I have missed? ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie Ex Northwest Arlns ESE, MSP Ramp, Green Concourse - and misses EETP Indiana University, Bloomington School of Law, Class of 2001! Well I hope so anyway ;) From kls Thu May 9 12:50:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Re: MD 90 airliner Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Date: 09 May 96 12:50:18 Message-ID: >From a cockpit perspective the MD-90 is designed to be as much like the MD-88 (glass cockpit version of the MD-80) as possible, enabling Delta to get a common type rating for its pilots. The many system and performance improvements on the MD-90 are transparent to the pilot for the most part. Not so with the up-coming MD-95, however, it will have a state-of-the-art Honeywell "Advanced Common Flightdeck" with 777-type displays! Steve From kls Thu May 9 12:50:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Date: 09 May 96 12:50:18 Message-ID: Here's some interesting news: In the latest Air International (May`96) there is a blurb about Conair Aviation (BC, Canada) seriously thinking of converting a 737-200 into a water bomber. I would be curious to know where the tanks and their doors would be located since th emain gear occupies a significant portion of the belly area. Perhaps in 20 years there'll be a re-make of that `water bombing' film `Always' with a Holly Hunter type actress boldly piloting her 767 water bomber down Fire Creek Canyon? -- Niels From kls Thu May 9 12:50:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Stretch A340-600 and MD-11 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 09 May 96 12:50:19 Message-ID: In article , Thomas O'Toole wrote: > >>I wonder if Boeing will consider building a "B-market" B777-300 when >>the B747-400 production line closes? > >-400 production won't be closing for many years...notice the -200 > production only closed a few years ago... > It was reported that the -400 line will gradually be phased out if the -500X is launched. IMHO, it does not make sense to offer two almost identical planes with a range difference of less than 1000 nm. However, a "B-market" B777-300, if there ever will be one, will be a much more effective product to compete with the proposed A340-600 than the B747-400. After all, the B747 is a fairly old design, and twins should have a significant cost advantage over four-engine planes. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Thu May 9 12:50:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: Re: Canadair Regional Jet Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 May 96 12:50:19 Message-ID: The DC9-10 had a hard wing as well, and just recently the airlines which operate it installed wing leading edge heaters to help alleviate the problem that, with no leading edge devices, the airplane's susceptibility to leading edge ice is greater than, say a DC9-30. Does the CRJ have the same type o system, or is it as sensitive to wing surface roughness due to ice? ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie Ex Northwest Arlns ESE, MSP Ramp, Green Concourse - and misses EETP Indiana University, Bloomington School of Law, Class of 2001! Well I hope so anyway ;) From kls Thu May 9 12:50:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Canadair Regional Jet Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: 09 May 96 12:50:19 Message-ID: Arthur Cordell (acordell@clark.dgim.doc.ca) writes: > On a slightly different note, what are they like for passengers? > Comfort, noise, seat pitch, sense of space, etc. I'm not a *frequent* flyer, but have been on a total of 120 flights in the past 20 years, so I have some experience. The last 8 of those flights were on Air Canada CRJ's, either YYZ/DCA or YYZ/PHL. As to noise, the word is good. There are 13 rows of seats in the plane. I've used row 12, quite close to the engines, and noise was no problem. Much, much better than trips I've had near the back of a 727 or L-1011. As to seating comfort, they don't seem out of line to me as compared to other economy class trips of recent years. One annoyance is that the windows are set rather low, detracting from city-viewing during the climb and approach phases. The small fuselage diameter is quite noticeable; I suppose it would bother claustrophic passengers. A tall man would definitely have to stoop to walk to his seat, and even I -- at less than 5 ft 8 in tall -- was unable to stand upright in the washroom. It would be an interesting experience to connect between one of these planes and a 747. Similarly, the amount of overhead bin space is relatively small. In addition to baggage checking, therefore, a "Skycheck" cart is placed next to the airplane at boarding, as a second chance to not carry stuff on board. This causes a slight delay on arrival, as the Skychecked items must be unloaded from the hold into a cart before the passengers are allowed off. A load of only 50 passengers makes for relatively rapid boarding; the fact that you walk out to the airplane in the open air and board by stairs (only about 6 steps up from the ground) has a certain nostalgic appeal if it isn't raining too hard. I particularly enjoyed doing it at Washington National (DCA), where the old Main Terminal is of the appropriate period and is actually suited for this sort of boarding. In Toronto (YYZ), on the other hand, Air Canada does its best to cancel the convenience factor: after the usual long and twisted walks of Terminal 2, you board a *bus* which carries you, with your hand baggage in your lap, to some distant part of the apron where you transfer to the actual airplane. -- Mark Brader | "No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris msb@sq.com | ... [because] no known motor can run at the requisite SoftQuad Inc. | speed for four days without stopping ..." Toronto | -- Orville Wright (c. 1908) My text in this article is in the public domain. From kls Thu May 9 12:50:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: domino@dial.pipex.com (George Darroch) Subject: Hush Kits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UnipalmPIPEX server (post doesn't reflect views of UnipalmPIPEX) Date: 09 May 96 12:50:19 Message-ID: I would be most grateful if I could have your input as to what advantages hush-kitting an aircraft carries and a very rough guess-timate as to the idea of the cost that can be involved versus the projected savings. I understand that one of the main reasons for fitting such kits to older aircraft is to increase fuel efficency, reduce noise and apply more modern drag reducing measures to ageing designs. I may however be wrong. :) What would be involved in fitting such a kit? New fan blades, possibly wing-lets or am I way off the mark? Many thanks in advance for your help and I understand that any figures you give may be very rough because there are so many different types of a/c, kits and factors to include. Regards George Darroch - domino@dial.pipex.com From kls Thu May 9 12:50:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: whodgins@axess.com (W. Hodgins) Subject: Snow on wings Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Axess Communications, Montreal, Canada Date: 09 May 96 12:50:19 Message-ID: Some time ago I was a passenger on a DC-9 flight out of Toronto in January as I recall. Looking out the window, I noticed a fair amount of snow on the wings...it was not removed and the aircraft took off with snow blowing off the wings as speed increased. I used to fly light aircraft in the early 70's and if I recall correctly we were supposed to ensure that nothing, not even frost, should be allowed to accumulate on the wings. What is the criteria for large jets...is an accumulation of light snow normally acceptable ? From kls Mon May 13 02:08:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Engines for B747X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 13 May 96 02:08:43 Message-ID: Last week, GE and Pratt announced a new joint venture to develop a 72K-84K lb-thrust engine for the ultra-long-range B747-500X and the stretched B747-600X. IMHO, GE probably had mis-sized the GE90 that they now have to develop a new engine for the proposed B747 derivatives. However, it is puzzling why Pratt can't do it alone, after all the cores for the PW4168 and the PW4084 are almost identical. Nevertheless, the long-term financial implication of the joint venture for the two engine companies is tremendous, and Rolls will have an even tougher time to fight the two giants. Rolls says they will offer a Trent 700 derivative for the new aircraft. GE and Pratt have separately invited IHI and Mitsubishi to participate in the new engine program. I wonder where the Europeans are?! BTW, Airbus has accused CFM for not willing to lower the engine price on the A340. As a result, Airbus could not be competive, and lost some significant orders to Boeing. OTOH, the three engine companies are probably bleeding badly in competing the B777 engine orders. This is probably the biggest driver behind the GE/Pratt cooperation. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Mon May 13 02:08:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Engines for B747X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 13 May 96 02:08:44 Message-ID: >IMHO, GE probably had mis-sized the GE90 that they now have to >develop a new engine for the proposed B747 derivatives. Is 70,000 lbs (as on the A330) the practical limit for the CF6-80? If so, perhaps that has something to do with the A330 being the first Airbus airframe on which GE hasn't had the largest share of the engine market. Still, the 747X requirements are only a bit lower than those of the 777 (77,000 lbs on the A-market model). A slightly de-rated GE90 would suffer weight disadvantages but it still might be competetive. >However, it is puzzling why Pratt can't do it alone, after all the >cores for the PW4168 and the PW4084 are almost identical. The Wall St. Journal had a big article in last Thursday's edition that seemed to imply that Boeing pushed them into it. Presumably, despite Boeing's assertion after the original 747 that they would never again offer an airliner without a choice of engines, they've decided that the financial advantages of limiting engine options are just too great. (Both the second and third generation 737s offer only CFM-56 engines.) The next day, the WSJ was reporting squables between GE and Pratt over the project. Surprise! >Nevertheless, the long-term financial implication of the joint venture >for the two engine companies is tremendous, and Rolls will have an even >tougher time to fight the two giants. Rolls says they will offer a >Trent 700 derivative for the new aircraft. On the surface, this seems like a major blow for Rolls. However, several likely 747-500X/600X customers already have Rolls-powered 777s on order. With the GE/Pratt joint venture, Rolls will offer the only engine that can power both the 777 and the 747-500X/600X. That seems like a major advantage for Rolls. -- 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 May 13 02:08:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: Hush Kits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 13 May 96 02:08:44 Message-ID: domino@dial.pipex.com writes: >I understand that one of the main reasons for fitting such kits to older >aircraft is to increase fuel efficency, reduce noise and apply more modern >drag reducing measures to ageing designs. I may however be wrong. :) Yup, you're wrong. 8-) Hushkits are installed *soley* to cut noise to meet Stage III requirements. They actually reduce the aircraft's efficiency (by a small %age) due to reduced thrust and a little more drag. >What would be involved in fitting such a kit? New fan blades, possibly >wing-lets or am I way off the mark? The hushkits on Air NZ's 737-200s are basically an extra bypass section bolted onto the tailpipe, replacing the thrust reversal buckets. (The hushkit either has its own reversal buckets, or they re-install the old buckets on the back of the hushkit -- I'm not sure, but they look very similar.) The kit mixes some of the surrounding air with the engine core flow, so that the aggregate speed of the flow hitting still air outside the tailpipe is slower than it would be Bypass Turbine Hushkit \ / __ / __-------\--------------/--____ ---/____ | __-----------------/-____ --- Hushkit flow Fan | |||__----____||||| ))))))))))))))) Bypass flow < ==== __ ____ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Core flow | __ ||| ---- |||||____ ))))))))))))))) Bypass flow __| --/--------\------- ____--- ____Hushkit flow -----/----------\-------- __---- / \ Compressor Combustion chamber Now, I'm not sure what's actually inside the huskit cowling; I don't believe there is any kind of fan there, but I'm not sure if the mixing with the core & bypass flows is achieved by simply guiding the surounding air into those flows or of there is a system of vanes inside the kit. BTW: Concorde has variable exhause that performs a similar trick on takeoff & landing -- the leading edge of the variable nozzle separates from the tailpipe to gather surounding air and mixes it with the core flow (the pure turbojets on Concorde have no bypass section), reducing the noise from extremely loud to just very very very loud. (The nozzle also performs thrust reversal on landing -- it's a lot like the thrust reversal buckets on the 737, but smaller and fully variable, acting as an expansion chamber for supersonic flight.) -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon May 13 02:08:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JetWayne@vonl.com Subject: Re: Hush Kits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: LDS iAmerica Date: 13 May 96 02:08:44 Message-ID: domino@dial.pipex.com (George Darroch) wrote: >I would be most grateful if I could have your input as to what advantages >hush-kitting an aircraft carries Many airports restrict some of the older and noisier jets. I flew into Washington National in an old Lear Jet, got delayed on the ground, and had problems getting out because they have a night curfew against loud airplanes. That illustrates the biggest advantage to getting a hush kit: increased access to airports. The Feds have requirements for most airlines to become quieter in stages over the years so there is a legal incentive also. > and a very rough guess-timate as to the >idea of the cost that can be involved versus the projected savings. Costs vary widely as you have guessed. This is pure speculation, but I think I heard numbers around 1.2 million for a refit on a Gulfstream 2 ( the G-2 is a typical business jet). I would guess that the price for an airliner would be around 2 or 3 million. >What would be involved in fitting such a kit? New fan blades, possibly >wing-lets or am I way off the mark? The main concern is controlling the exhaust pattern. While some hush kits modify the intake almost all modify the tail cone in some way. JetWayne@vonl.com From kls Mon May 13 02:08:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: ("David G. Imber" ) Subject: Create body design for new B777's, win $20,000 (really) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Maniform Creative Services Date: 13 May 96 02:08:45 Message-ID: Japan Air System (JAS), the big domestic airline, is giving away a grand prize of $20,000 and several other large prizes for the winning body design of their new Boeing 777 airplanes. Designs are submitted via the World Wide Web. The competition will be judged by director Kurosawa Akira among others. Kurosawa's rainbow designs were selected last year for their current fleet of MD90 airliners. This year they are opening the competition to _anyone_. To check it out, go to http://www.jas.co.jp./e_jashom.htm David G. Imber From kls Mon May 13 02:08:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: ValuJet flight 592 (DC-9-32) crash near Miami on Saturday, May 11 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 13 May 96 02:08:45 Message-ID: As many readers probably already know, a ValuJet DC-9 crashed last Saturday (May 11) in the Florida Everglades, a few miles northwest of Miami International Airport. Flight 592 departed MIA at 205p, about an hour late, for a 1:55 flight to ATL. Eight minutes after takeoff, at an altitude of about 10,500 ft, the pilots reported smoke in the cockpit and cabin; they attempted to return to MIA but the plane crashed about twenty minutes after takeoff. The location was not far from the site of the December, 1972 Eastern Airlines L-1011 crash. There were several witnesses to the crash, two fishermen and a GA pilot. The pilot at first thought someone was doing aerobatics, a "lazy eight" manouver. (Could someone describe this, or better yet, point us to a figure on the WWW?) He then realized the plane was not a small plane, and shortly thereafter saw it roll to the right and then dive into the swamp, impacting at about a 75 degree nose-down pitch. Flight 592 carried 104 passengers and 5 crew. As of late Sunday, rescue workers have given up hope of finding any of them alive and are now focusing on recovering the flight recorders and other parts of the plane which may help in determining the cause of the crash. (There is about 4-5 feet of water at the crash site, with a thick layer of mud below that. Visibility in the water is reportedly about two *inches* so the initial search is being done by feel, at least until the Navy brings in some special sonar and other equip- ment. To make matters even worse, the area is also infested with aligators and poisonous snakes.) The aircraft was a DC-9-32, registration N904VJ and serial number 47377. The 496th aircraft off the DC-9 line, it was originally delivered to Delta as N1281L on May 27, 1969, and was acquired by ValuJet in December, 1993, the four member of ValuJet's fleet. Since 1994, it reportedly had to return to the departure airport on seven occasions due to what the media claims were "safety" problems. That sounds a bit on the high side but I'm guessing at that -- would a couple of readers with airliner maintenance experience care to comment? One lawyer is already claiming it had to be pilot error, even if the cockpit was filled with smoke. Please, folks, let's leave the wild speculation to the lawyers. It may be days or months before the NTSB has any official comment on the cause of the crash, and until they have something to say, random posts asking what caused the crash will be summarily rejected. -- 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 May 13 02:08:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Your Organization Date: 13 May 96 02:08:45 Message-ID: In article , "Niels M. Sampath" says: >I would be curious to know where the tanks and their doors would >be located since th emain gear occupies a significant portion of >the belly area. The main gear attach to the wing, not the fuselage. There is plenty of room remaining on the belly. From kls Mon May 13 02:08:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 13 May 96 02:08:45 Message-ID: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM writes: >sources of noise reduction, MD also notes that the aft-mounted engines >use the wing as a partial noise shield. Um, how? Most of the noise comes from just behind the tailpipe, where there is a "tearing" effect between the core flow and the bypass flow. Take a line from that area through the wing, and you find that for the most part you have to go through the engine nacelle first. The only exception is on paths that intersect the outer wing, but these leave only a small shadow at extremely shallow angles to the ground. That said, a wing mounted high-bypass engine, with the tailpipe well under the wing, is going to have some of its noise reflected downward. That give the aft-mounted configuration an advantage due to what isn't there, rather than what is... Ironically, the noisy JT8Ds on the 737-100/200 have their tailpipes well aft of the wing. (And yes, they're *noisy* inside the cabin!) -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon May 13 02:08:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rmhughes@iinet.net.au (Rick Hughes) Subject: Re: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: iiNet Technologies (Perth, Western Australia) Reply-To: Rick Hughes Date: 13 May 96 02:08:45 Message-ID: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) wrote: >In article (Dans l'article) , Andrew >Goldfinger wrote (=E9crivait)=A0: >> A friend of my reported recently riding in the cockpit of an >> A340. At one point, the pilot flipped a switch and asked my friend if he >> had felt anything unusual about how the plane was flying. My friend did >> not notice anything. The pilot then told him that he had just shut down >> the number 3 engine. He indicated that the autopilot handled the shutdown >> to such an extent that there was no physical sensation, just an indication >> of a drop in engine RPM. Are there any A340 experts out there who can >> comment on this? The A340 handles engine failures very well, as do most modern jet airliners with autopilot engaged. The sensation will vary depending on factors such as speed at the time of failure, thrust being produced by the engine, and whether thrust loss is instantaneous or over a period of time. >I am not a "expert" but the auto-pilot of A320/A330/A340 can cope with an >engine shutdown even just after take-off when the auto-pilot is engaged. >It is one of the best Airbus security system [from Airbus press] I don't >know if Boeing or MD Douglas airliners have such a thing. IMO it is a very >good safety system, but the problem is that the auto-pilot do not give >enough feedback to pilots, the RMP drop is not enough, I would prefer a >aural warning too. The lack of aural feedback only occurs when the engine is shutdown intentionally as in the above example. If the engine fails or an engine fire warning is present, visual warning/caution lights are all present as are aural warnings and ECAM procedures. You can't miss them ... even at 0500 in the morning after a long dark night. An interesting aside ... in my experience under most Civil Aviation jurisdictions, practice engine shutdowns (as distinct from 'precautionary shutdowns') with passengers on board are illegal. What is the FAA ruling on this ... can anyone enlighten me (I assume it would be the same)?? IMHO I doubt there would be many professional aviators shutting down engines for the benefit of passengers visiting the cockpit. Rick Hughes Perth Western Australia From kls Mon May 13 02:08:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: A340 - needed a computer re-boot at gate (long) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Date: 13 May 96 02:08:45 Message-ID: In article , m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk (Martin) wrote: >Hi, > >I thought you might be interested in a recent experience I had on an A340 >about to depart on an 11 hour flight to LHR. It wasn't a US airline, but >that's all I'll say about their ID. > >We boarded at ETA-30 minutes, and the door was closed at eta-5. We then >sat there for 20 minutes before the captain announced "a very minor >technical fault with a fuel valve which will take 15 minutes to sort out". >I thought the above was both interesting and amusing! I wonder why they >didn't pull the CBs for the ecam, aids, bite or whatever actually needed >rebooting? > Did you actually look around the flight deck when you were up there? There really aren't that many CB's. There may have been no other way to reset the computer. Many of the computers cannot be reset that way on the 340. The only way is the "MASTER RESET" :) Power down the whole aircraft and re start from the beginning. The Emergency lights have their own batteries as they do on all aircraft. l8R -- ------------------------------------ Brad GIllies Bradg@io.org PPASEL AME (CANADA) A&P HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg ------------------------------------ From kls Mon May 13 02:08:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Date: 13 May 96 02:08:46 Message-ID: In article , Alain Deckers wrote: >According to today's (8 May 1996) UK edition of the Financial Times, >"Virgin Atlantic has become the third airline to express a strong interest >in buying a double decker 'super-jumbo' aircraft capable of carrying more >than 500 passengers" (p. 7). The report also states that estimated >development cost for Boeing's 747-600X is $2 billion, while Airbus would >have to develop an all new aircraft at a cost of $8-12 billion. That's interesting, given what a small airline Virgin is (compared to many long haul carriers). But then again, given that there base is Heathrow and they have a perennial slot problem, and that they fly to places like Hong Kong and Tokyo, I guess it's not that surprising. I suspect that there will be something of a marketing advantage from using the aircraft ('We fly the newest and biggest aircraft in the world') and given that Virgin are expert at marketing themselves, I guess it may not be that surprising. Given Singapore, BA, Virgin, and perhaps people like Lufthansa and Qantas (both of who I have heard are interested in the -500 or -600, Boeing might be able to rustle up 20 or so orders for a launch later in the year. For one thing, I think it would be politically desirable for BA to be seen to be ordering them with respect to the enquiry into building terminal 5 at Heathrow. (BA is trying to convince the enquiry that it is only going to increase the number of passengers, not the number of flights) > >Could anyone clear this up for me? Does the 747-600X use the same wing as >the current (747-400) model or would Boeing develop a new wing? > Boeing plans to develop a new wing. This will be placed on two new models, the 747-500 (which will be about the same size as the 747-400 but will have a significantly greater range) and the stretched Boeing 747-600, which will have about the same range as the 747-400. 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 "Much of what passes for quality on British television is no more than a reflection of the values of the narrow elite which controls it and which has always thought that its tastes are synonymous with quality" - Rupert Murdoch From kls Mon May 13 02:08:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Snow Subject: Re: MD-80 vs. Super-80 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 May 96 02:08:46 Message-ID: On 9 May 1996, Scott D. Morris wrote: > I've always wondered why American Airlines chooses to confuse things by > referring to the MD-80 as a "Super-80". Yes before the MD-80 was known by > that name it was the DC-9, Super 80, but that changed years ago. American > needs to get in line with the times and become consistant with other carriers. > > Any comments?? The reason is that when McDonnell-Douglas first started the MD-80 project, it was designated as the Super 80. I somewhere still have some Douglas publicity shots with Super 80 emblazoned all over the side of the airplane. There is also a legal aspect as well - on the Type Data Certificate issued by the FAA, all MD80s up to the MD-88 are known as DC-9-80 (MD-80), where both elements are required. DLs MD-88s on their Type data certificate are known simply as an MD-88. Even though most people know the "Super 80" as an MD80, to the FAA its a DC-9-80 (MD-80). Therefore, AA is 100% correct in calling their fleet of Super 80s, Super 80s. Hell, Eastern called their fleet of DC9s Whisperjets, and there was nothing quiet about em! Airlines can call their aircraft pretty much anything they so choose. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie Ex Northwest Arlns ESE, MSP Ramp, Green Concourse FAA PPL, IR, and ADX(in training) From kls Mon May 13 02:08:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gclst1+@pitt.edu (Grant C Lynde) Subject: Re: MD-80 vs. Super-80 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Pittsburgh Date: 13 May 96 02:08:46 Message-ID: In article , Scott D. Morris wrote: >I've always wondered why American Airlines chooses to confuse things by >referring to the MD-80 as a "Super-80". Because DC-9s got a bad rap for a while with the American flying public for accidents that weren't the airframe's fault. So, in an effort to spruce up the image and avoid the negative connotations the DC-9 had, they "renamed" (not really) it the Super-80. From kls Mon May 13 02:08:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu (Richard N. Rea) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 13 May 96 02:08:46 Message-ID: In article Jay Selman writes: >"John O'Brien" wrote: -Snip! >>Will there ever be another T-Tailed airliner >>after the current ones become obsolete ? I know its all -Snip! >I could be wrong but I believe the T-tail evolved in modern airliners as a >result of keeping the horizontal stabilizer out of the exhaust path of >planes built with rear-mounted engines. Offhand, I'd reckon to say that >all airliners with engines on the aft fuselage have t-tails, or at least >some variation of that. >As for turboprops with t-tails, again, I imagine that the idea is to keep >the stab out of harm's way from engine exhaust. On that subject, a >notable exception is the Shorts 330/360. Does anyone know if the engine >exhaust hitting the horizontal stab causes any structural problems?? T-Tails keep the rudder from being blocked by the horizontal stabilizer at high angles of attack, which would reduce its effectiveness at the onset of a stall. There are tradeoffs with a T-Tail such as the extra structural requirements for the vertical stabilizer, aerodynamics of the intersection of the horizontal and vertical surfaces, etc. BTW: The C-5 and the C-141 both use T-Tails, although this may be due to the aerodynamics of the rear upswept fuselage. From kls Mon May 13 02:08:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jnedzel@netcom.com (Jared Nedzel) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 13 May 96 02:08:46 Message-ID: In article terenz@neutron.reno.nv.us writes: >"John O'Brien" wrote: >>DC-8s,707s all looked distinctive and had... > ^^^^^^^^^ > >These two and the Convair jets looked the same, except the 707 had >that probe on top of the tail. The DC-8s and 707s are actually fairly easy to distinguish. The DC-8s have significantly taller gear and have two intakes in the chin of the nose. -- Jared Nedzel jnedzel@netcom.com MRC Partners Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me From kls Mon May 13 02:08:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: apl Date: 13 May 96 02:08:47 Message-ID: In article , terenz@neutron.reno.nv.us writes: >These two and the Convair jets looked the same, except the 707 had >that probe on top of the tail. What was that probe on the tail? From kls Mon May 13 02:08:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: andrewsa@cc781.comm.mot.com (Andrew Sapuntzakis) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Motorola Inc Date: 13 May 96 02:08:47 Message-ID: In article , philipp@westnet.com (Ralf Philipp) writes: >>I find it difficult to distinguish at a glance an A330 >>from a 767 / 777, a 737-400 from an A320, an A310 from a 757 >>or TU-204. > >I've found that the fastest way to tell if an aircraft is a Boeing or an >Airbus is the top of the rear fuselage. If the top slopes down as towards the >end of the aircraft, it's a Boeing; if it goes straight (parallell to the >ground), it's an Airbus. I don't know if the "top of the rear fuselage" test applies to the B777, but it does work for the B767. The B757 looks long and skinny. Most (?) of the A320s have small non-trapezoidal winglets. 737-100, -200 : looong, skinny (low-bypass) engines 737-300 and up: Fat engines with flats on the bottom to accomodate low ground clearance. The "root" of the vertical tail starts further forward, and with a very shallow angle. -- CU Andrew S. andrewsa@cc.comm.mot.com From kls Mon May 13 02:08:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Home Date: 13 May 96 02:08:47 Message-ID: Jay Selman (avfoto@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : As for turboprops with t-tails, again, I imagine that the idea is to keep : the stab out of harm's way from engine exhaust. On that subject, a : notable exception is the Shorts 330/360. Does anyone know if the engine : exhaust hitting the horizontal stab causes any structural problems?? Not to the horizontal stab but the exhaust that goes over the wing on the right of each engine causes problems to the upper wing skin. Also the aft fairing tends to corrode also due to the heat but not too badly. A mail carrier at Luton ( 7 years ago ) caused major disbonding of the left fuselage side above the window line when a very wet start sprayed flames down the side of an SD330. -- Ian Judge _|_ ian@judgei.demon.co.uk _____(_)_____ ! ! ! From kls Mon May 13 02:08:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 13 May 96 02:08:47 Message-ID: >I think it's a function of aerodynamics and economy. R/C gliders that >are built for manuevring performance often have T-tails while those >built for maximum lift (for scavenging thermals) have a fortizonatl >stab inline with the wings. The horizontal stab riding in the main >wing's shadow creates less drag and thus probably is more fuel >economical. My (possibly erroneous) understanding is that aerodynamicists like T-tails, due to better handling (the tail is further back on the airfram) and having the surface in clean air vs in the wing's slipstream, whereas the structures folk hate them -- the vertical tail has to carry not only its own forces but all the forces inflicted on it by the stab. I believe the (T-tailed) BAe146 has highly disturbed airflow behind the wing due to the flaps extending into the exhaust for better low speed performance. The 146 is kinda short, so it seems that having the stab well clear of the flow from the flaps just when you need the maximum elevator effectiveness is a good idea. >>economics now but I liked the days when VC10s, Tridents, > ^^^^^^^^ >could be confused for a B-727 as a BAC 1-11 could be confused for a >DC-9. Trident has flattened fottom edge on the No. 2 intake, 727 has round intake on No. 2. Trident Three also has a small booster engine mounted above No. 2 (how do they number that?). Also the teardrop shaped side widow on the flightdeck. BAC 1-11 has round windows, DC-9's are squarish. >>DC-8s,707s all looked distinctive and had... > ^^^^^^^^^ >These two and the Convair jets looked the same, except the 707 had >that probe on top of the tail. DC8 has "nostrils" (small air intakes just behind the radome), less wingsweep than the 707 and bigger windows (but less of 'em). Not all 707s have the VHF antenna probe either -- 720s usually don't. Convair CV880 & CV990 have a long nose and very raked back cockpit windows. The CV990 has rather barrellike engine nacelles. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon May 13 02:08:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: McElravy Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 13 May 96 02:08:47 Message-ID: >The 777 wing is somewhat superior to the A/330/340 wing in >that it will allow quite a family of future airplanes to be based on it, >from high gross weight to stretched, to short range, etc. Airbus is >pretty much at the limit now of what they can do with their wing. While this is certainly true, you musn't forget that the reason for this may stem from the A330/A340 family's use of the same wing to amount either two or four engines. I'm not sure, but isn't the proposed A340-8000 (which is going to be very stretched) going to use a different wing? From kls Mon May 13 02:08:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 13 May 96 02:08:48 Message-ID: > According to Peter Bowers, _Boeing Aircraft Since 1916_, the original > design studies for the 757 was to be the 727-300, which, after a great > deal of study, was abandoned and replaced by the 757 concept, which > was, indeed, to have used the T-tail of the 27; as studies continued, The 727-300B actually came very close to getting a production order from United Airlines. It would have had 20ft fuselage stretch, four wheel gear trucks, JT8D-200s, and some wing mods, including a change to slats inboard and variable camber Kruegers (ala 747) outboard. When United didn't bite, Boeing went back to the drawing board. The original 757 (model 761-161) had a 707/727/737 fuselage, a 707/737 derived tail, an all new wing and wing mounted engines. From here, the model 761-164 was developed, as a T-tailed 727 derivative, with wing mounted engines. This quickly evolved into the model 761-177 and then the model 761-280, when the T-tail dissapeared. Very late in the going, the 767 cockpit was grafted onto the design, and the drooped nose appeared. This happened so late that the revised nose was only wind tunnel tested after the first metal had been cut. CFD was used to fine tune the nose contours before the lines were frozen for production. The result of all of this is the 757 we all know today. BTW - Phil Condit, now Boeing Prez and CEO, was the Director of Engineering, 757 Division. A good technical paper written by him, describing all of this, appeared in the Aeronautical Journal, in December 1981 as "Design Evolution of the Boeing 757". ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Mon May 13 02:08:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Geoff.Miller@Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: FizzBall Racing Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Reply-To: Geoff.Miller@Eng.Sun.COM Date: 13 May 96 02:08:48 Message-ID: "John O'Brien" wrote: > I know that in the late 70's the first designs of the > 757 had a T-Tail but that this was later replaced by > the normal fin and lower tail-plane. auser@somewhere.com (NOYDB) replies: > Since the 757 is the replacement for the 727 airframe you are > probably referring to an early test bed or proof of concept > airframe. John is correct. Back in the 1970s, before the 757 and 767 designs were frozen, their general concepts were given the working designations 7J7 and 7X7, respectively. I remember seeing drawings of some early versions in AvLeak at the time. The 7X7, as I recall, evolved into the familiar 767 shape rather quickly. The 7J7, on the other hand, went through a more extended evolution. It originally had the fuselage of the 727 with two engines under the wings, and a third buried in the fuselage 727-style -- but with a difference. Instead of the 727's circular (or oval) intake on top of the fuselage, the design employed a pair of rectangular intakes high on either side of the aft fuselage; they were located at approximately the "ten o'clock" and "two o'clock" positions. Also, the design employed the 727's familiar T-tail empennage assembly. Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Mountain View, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- From kls Mon May 13 02:08:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mleibelt@tcs.itis.com (Mark Leibelt) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 13 May 96 02:08:48 Message-ID: >As for turboprops with t-tails, again, I imagine that the idea is to keep >the stab out of harm's way from engine exhaust. On that subject, a >notable exception is the Shorts 330/360. Does anyone know if the engine >exhaust hitting the horizontal stab causes any structural problems?? When I flew the Box(Shorts 360 & 360AR) for Simmons(MQ) in the mid 80's we had a few aircraft that went though a 10000 hour inspections and I can't remember any problems with the tails from the engine exhaust. The plane was nice to fly if you could stand to look at it as you got into it. From kls Mon May 20 09:54:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: glenn@netway.net () Subject: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EntertainNet, Denver, CO +1 303 730 6050 Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 May 96 09:54:36 Message-ID: Does anyone know if Northwest Airlines operates any 747SP's ? I heard someone say that he saw one July 1995 in Detroit. From kls Mon May 20 09:54:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 20 May 96 09:54:36 Message-ID: >Does anyone know if Northwest Airlines operates any 747SP's ? Northwest does not have any 747SPs. To my knowedlge, they never have and never operated any on lease or otherwise borrowed. There were no 747SP-51s built. (The 51 would indicate it was built for Northwest.) -- 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 May 20 09:54:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bob Standaert Subject: Chemistry of Oxygen Generators Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University Date: 20 May 96 09:54:37 Message-ID: I remember reading a post which mentioned that emergency oxygen in modern aircraft is generated chemically by "perchlorate candles," and I was curious about how they worked. The recent ValuJet crash renewed my curiosity; can anyone please provide more detailed information about how the O2 generators work? I would be most interested to know the exact chemical reaction and how it is initiated, but any help, insight, or history would be appreciated. Thanks and Regards, Bob Standaert From kls Mon May 20 09:54:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tlong@mail.vcnet.com (Tim Long) Subject: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VCnet Date: 20 May 96 09:54:37 Message-ID: I seem to remember around 1982 or so, PSA (later merged into USAir) started flying the BA146. Lots of bragging about being the quietest commercial jet aircraft flying at the time.I know they're still marketed as the Avro RJ 100 or some such, but why so few of them? They would only be 14 years old or so; you would expect them to still be flying/common. What caused them to not become popular? Reliability? Cost of maintaining 4 engines? I've never seen this clearly explained. From kls Mon May 20 09:54:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ValuJet flight 592 (DC-9-32) crash near Miami on Saturday, May 11 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 20 May 96 09:54:37 Message-ID: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >One lawyer is already claiming it had to be pilot error, even if >the cockpit was filled with smoke. Please, folks, let's leave the >wild speculation to the lawyers. My mind stripped some gears watching CNN a few minutes after the crash was announced. They had a "safety expert" on the air within an hour, and the interviewer was completely out of control, asking INCREDIBLY stupid and prejudicial questions, such as "What do you think the flight data recorder will show?" Local news services (here in Texas!) are similarly milking it for all it's worth, positioning their roving reporters at airport gates, interviewing departing passengers, and trying to position the crash as an indictment on air safety as a whole, and aiming for emotional reaction shots. My opinion of general media news coverage has reached a new low. Two days from now, there will be no coverage, unless the salvage effort produces some pretty pictures or human drama. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Mon May 20 09:54:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: vee12@airmail.net (Butch Vaillancourt) Subject: Re: ValuJet flight 592 (DC-9-32) crash near Miami on Saturday, May 11 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 May 96 09:54:37 Message-ID: Returning to the gate is not a major deal. The flying public would be shocked to find out what is allowable to be broken and still considered to be safe. There is probably not very many airplanes that do not have at least 1 or 2 deffered items on them at any one time. Sometimes things happen and the crew is not required to return to the gate. Most people would believe that everything is required to be working correctly all of the time, this is not the case. B.V. 8 years commerical aircraft maintenance From kls Mon May 20 09:54:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Date: 20 May 96 09:54:38 Message-ID: In article , Rick Hughes wrote: >Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) wrote: > >>In article (Dans l'article) , Andrew >>Goldfinger wrote (=E9crivait)=A0: > >>> A friend of my reported recently riding in the cockpit of an >>> A340. At one point, the pilot flipped a switch and asked my friend if he >>> had felt anything unusual about how the plane was flying. My friend did >>> not notice anything. The pilot then told him that he had just shut down >>> the number 3 engine. He indicated that the autopilot handled the shutdown >>> to such an extent that there was no physical sensation, just an indication >>> of a drop in engine RPM. Are there any A340 experts out there who can >>> comment on this? There would be a drop in RPM. An ECAM message Saying NUMBER 3 ENGINE SHUTDOWN Power would increase on the other 3 engines. If the engine had actually failed there would also be a checklist displayed on the lower ECAM screen stating corrective action or action to be taken. Ireally doubt he shut down the engine just for show because if he did he should be fired. > >The lack of aural feedback only occurs when the engine is shutdown >intentionally as in the above example. If the engine fails or an >engine fire warning is present, visual warning/caution lights are all >present as are aural warnings and ECAM procedures. You can't miss >them ... even at 0500 in the morning after a long dark night. Actually the Aural warning for an engine fire and other things are inhibited during the T/O phase of flight. The reason for this is the pilot has many other things to worry about the fire can wait. The pilots first priority is ALWAYS to FLY THE PLANE first. Fires can be dealt with later. As for failures at T/O I have been on a 767 that suffered an engine failure at T/O. The only indication to the passengers was a momentary yaw to the right which was immediately compensated for, I can't say if it was the autopilot or the human pilot but it was handeled very well and the passengers did not even notice until the pilot announcced it. He did not even declare an emergency ( I asked him later. He said Why declare an emergency we still have one good engine). > >An interesting aside ... in my experience under most Civil Aviation >jurisdictions, practice engine shutdowns (as distinct from >'precautionary shutdowns') with passengers on board are illegal. What >is the FAA ruling on this ... can anyone enlighten me (I assume it >would be the same)?? "practice shutdowns" are not allowed while carrying passengers. > >IMHO I doubt there would be many professional aviators shutting down >engines for the benefit of passengers visiting the cockpit. > Definately not... -- ------------------------------------ Brad GIllies Bradg@io.org PPASEL AME (CANADA) A&P HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg ------------------------------------ From kls Mon May 20 09:54:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.energy,sci.environment Path: bounce-back From: C++ Freak Subject: [Q] what is the energy consumption of several airliners ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Knoware Internet Date: 20 May 96 09:54:38 Message-ID: For a letter to an environmental group in Holland I want to know the energy consumption and the exhaust of CO2, NOx and un or partially burnt fuel of airliners like : 744 (747-400) MD-11 737-500 A340 A310-600 Fokker 100 compared to old noisemakers like: 707 DC-9 DC-8 747-200 DC-10 (first version release 1971) According to the consumption of 180 tons full tank of a 744 which is enough for 16 hours nonstop flight + 1 takeoff + 1 landing I obtained an average power of 159 MW, that's 400 kW per passenger, using following formulas: - Average formula of fuel is C8H18 (octane) - Full combustion - Using Hess law of chemistry of reaction heat forming H2O is 286 kJ/mol (upper value, water escapes as vapor) and CO2 is 406 kJ/mol. When this 400 kW is true, that's a *lot* ! For shorter flights this is even higher per mile or km, so that's why aviation is such a high contribution to global warming. Anyway, can somebody help me with the data ? Klaas From kls Mon May 20 09:54:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dwarren5@ix.netcom.com (billie durso) Subject: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Date: 20 May 96 09:54:38 Message-ID: I am new to this subscription so please bear with me. I was wondering about the recent crash of the Valujet DC-9, and arrived at the following question. This question applies to all of the elder transports 727, 737, DC-9, DC-10... I am pretty sure that all of these earlier aircraft had mechanical linkages to all of the primary flight control surfaces. I also am pretty sure that these mechanical linkages were hydraulically boosted to easy in control of the aircraft. Assuming a total power failure in the aircraft, are these hydraulic boosters shutdown? If so the flight surfaces would become excessively hard to control. If anyone out there has any experience with the design of these aircraft please give me an answer about this. Could a fire in the main fusebox cause a total power fialure throughout th e aircraft.? Let me know. Thanks D.Warren From kls Mon May 20 09:54:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The American University Date: 20 May 96 09:54:38 Message-ID: Somebody wrote: >>The report also states that estimated development cost for Boeing's >>747-600X is $2 billion, while Airbus would >>have to develop an all new aircraft at a cost of $8-12 billion. I would think this means that Boeing would have to be crazy NOT to build the plane, whereas Airbus would be crazy TO build the plane. I can see the Qantas planes now -- with "Bigger Top" painted on them. A Boeing 6-fold cost advantage would seem insurmountable to me -- am I missing something here? From kls Mon May 20 09:54:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: felix@sleet.seas.ucla.edu (Felix R. Villatuya) Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: School of Engineering & Applied Science, UCLA. Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 20 May 96 09:54:38 Message-ID: Michael Jennings (M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk) wrote: : In article , : Alain Deckers wrote: : >According to today's (8 May 1996) UK edition of the Financial Times, : >"Virgin Atlantic has become the third airline to express a strong interest : >in buying a double decker 'super-jumbo' aircraft capable of carrying more : >than 500 passengers" (p. 7). The report also states that estimated : >development cost for Boeing's 747-600X is $2 billion, while Airbus would : >have to develop an all new aircraft at a cost of $8-12 billion. Will Virgin Atlantic simply add seats on the larger aircraft, or will they equip their aircraft with other "conveniences"? Aircraft manufacturers have made mock displays of cabin layouts with gym equipment on board before. -- Felix Rainier Villatuya felix@seas.ucla.edu frv@ucla.edu "Life is not at all that bad my friend" From kls Mon May 20 09:54:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA Date: 20 May 96 09:54:39 Message-ID: On 9 May 1996, Karl Swartz wrote: > The biggest point of controversy seems to be the cockpit. Boeing > wants to keep the foreward section of the new models the same as the > 747-400 to minimize costs. Some airlines are asking for cockpits more > like that of the 777, possibly going as far as having a common type > rating. Is there any precedent for a common type rating for aircraft having different numbers of engines? Is this true for the Airbus A330-A340 ? If a common type rating for the B777 and B747-500 and -600 is allowed, would present B777 rating holders be allowed to fly all three aircraft or would the combined rating be a new type rating? "If the poor have no computers, let them use work stations." Marie Internette Peter Wezeman From kls Mon May 20 09:54:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tim Hills Subject: 747 Question. Are there any EFIS experts out there? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Timbo PLC Date: 20 May 96 09:54:39 Message-ID: I've just finished the groundschool phase of the 747-400 conversion, and I'm looking for an answer to a question that cropped up in classroom discussion. The Boeing computer based training package says that the sole source of vertical speed information on the pilots PFD is the associated IRS. Whilst I accept that all modern inertial systems calculate vetical accelerations, I don't see how the VSI system can work without any air data input. My last aircraft but one used inertial reference for short term vertical speed, and barometric sources for long term altitude *smoothing*. Does the 747-400 do this in reality, or have they designed a system that can sense its null point inertially? Hope someone can answer my question, there is beer on it! Thanks, -- Tim Hills From kls Mon May 20 10:13:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.space.tech,sci.engr.safety Path: bounce-back From: BGOODIN@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (William R. Goodin) Subject: UCLA short course on "Software Safety: Principles and Practices" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UCLA Extension Date: 20 May 96 10:13:16 Message-ID: On August 12-14, 1996, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Software Safety: Principles and Practices" on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructor is Dev Raheja, MS, PE, CSP, System Software Consultant and Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland. A growing number of major mishaps involving medical devices, automobiles, aircraft and other complex systems have been directly attributable to poor or negligent software design. As a result, software liability awards are doubling every five years. The objective of this course is to guide software engineers and managers in preventing software hazards. It emphasizes sound software design principles for building inherent safety into complex systems. The course is especially suited for entry-level programmers, software engineers, and project managers in automobile, aircraft, computer, consumer products, medical device, programmable chip, and automated system industries. Specific topics include: Software safety principles, Software risk management from early design, Workshop on design rules for safety, Workshop on applying design rules, Hazard analysis process, Workshop on softrees, Hazard analysis techniques, Workshop on software failure mode and effects analysis, Robust design for safety, Workshop on fault tolerance, Safety concerns for real-time systems, Workshop on petrinets, Language concerns, Testing for safety, Quality assurance for safety-critical components, Safety standards, Software safety program. PREREQUISITE Participants are expected to have some education or experience in software engineering and programming. The course fee is $1195 which includes extensive course notes. These notes are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu From kls Mon May 20 10:13:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Engines for B747X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 20 May 96 10:13:16 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>IMHO, GE probably had mis-sized the GE90 that they now have to >>develop a new engine for the proposed B747 derivatives. > >Is 70,000 lbs (as on the A330) the practical limit for the CF6-80? >If so, perhaps that has something to do with the A330 being the first >Airbus airframe on which GE hasn't had the largest share of the engine >market. Probably so. I believe the current -80E1 (on the A330) is rated at 67,000 lb. A 72K version was planned, but I believe it has been cancelled. With only three airline operators (namely, Air Inter, Aer Lingus and Philippine), the CF6 is lagging way behind the competitors. The ILFC's order earlier this year certainly helps a lot. > >Still, the 747X requirements are only a bit lower than those of the >777 (77,000 lbs on the A-market model). A slightly de-rated GE90 >would suffer weight disadvantages but it still might be competetive. First of all, all three manufacturers have their engines derated for the A-market B777. Furthermore, the GE90 is already suffering from great weight disadvantages on the B777 (approximately 6,000 lb heavier than the Trent 800, and 4,000 lb heavier than the PW4084), GE is pinning its hope on the growth versions of the B777. GE claims the 100K version will only be 150 lbs heavier than the base engine. The GE90 is simply too heavy for the 747X; ground clearance may be another problem. > >The Wall St. Journal had a big article in last Thursday's edition that >seemed to imply that Boeing pushed them into it. Presumably, despite >Boeing's assertion after the original 747 that they would never again >offer an airliner without a choice of engines, they've decided that >the financial advantages of limiting engine options are just too great. >(Both the second and third generation 737s offer only CFM-56 engines.) GE's financial strength certainly played a role in the exclusive deal with the third generation B737. IMHO, the B737 market is large enough to support two competitors, but the 747X probably won't be. In addition to the B737, if GE gets its will and get exclusive sourcing for the 747X (with Pratt), A340-600, and possibly the Chinese AE-100 (with the CFM56-9 which is competing with the PW6000 and BR700), it's scary how GE might dominate the market in the future. > >On the surface, this seems like a major blow for Rolls. However, >several likely 747-500X/600X customers already have Rolls-powered 777s >on order. With the GE/Pratt joint venture, Rolls will offer the only >engine that can power both the 777 and the 747-500X/600X. That seems >like a major advantage for Rolls. > True, but the only problem is Rolls may not be given a chance. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Mon May 20 10:13:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FLKF50A@prodigy.com (Mark Meltzer) Subject: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Date: 20 May 96 10:13:16 Message-ID: Does anyone know what the status of Maine Coast Airlines Lockheed 1649 Connies is? I've heard that they have two near Portland Maine and one in Fla. where it made an emergency landing en-route to join the others in Maine. Are they being maintained? Any palns for future flights? Thanks for any info. From kls Mon May 20 10:13:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Geoff Moran Subject: Mothballed Airliners and other aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Camtech (SA) Pty Ltd Date: 20 May 96 10:13:16 Message-ID: I would be gratefull for any information relating to aircfaft graveyards in the United States containing thousands of civilian and military aircraft no longer used. In particular I would like to know if they can be visited by the general public, and if so, where are they? Are the aircraft accessible? My son and I think these sites are aircraft heaven and if worthwhile would like to plan a trip. Thanking you in advance for any response, Geoffrey Moran GMoran@senet.com.au From kls Mon May 20 10:13:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: DC Voltages Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 20 May 96 10:13:17 Message-ID: In article rwbaker@airmail.net ( ) writes: > I have a question about the 28VDC used on commercial aircraft. Are > there any special or unusual characteristics about this current? I > have a need to take the 28VDC and convert it to 12VDC in an aircraft, > any ideas? The 28VDC is pretty clean for the most part, with some minor ripple voltage. However, it's not uncommon for it to fluctuate slowly anywhere between 24 VDC to 32 VDC, depending on the type of aircraft, source of the power, ambient conditions, etc. Also, depending on the aircraft, you may expect some transient spikes when aircraft power is switched around from various sources - e.g. from ground power, to APU-driven generators, to engine-driven generators. Also, depending on which bus you draw power from, this effect may be somewhat mitigated - the battery (essential DC) bus, for example, will be pretty steady because of the battery system stabilizing the circuit. A simple voltage / regulator circuit ought to be enough if you just want simple 12V output. However, it also depends on your application - will this be a certified piece of hardware? If so, depending on the criticality (e.g. flight critical vs. essential vs. non-essential), you may need to demonstrate different levels of robustness and reliability in the design, to mitigate potential failure modes. BTW, most modern avionics typically generate their own internal DC for TRANSISTOR applications from the ship's 400Hz 115VAC (via an internal power supply). These systems tend to only use the 28 VDC power for lighting and annunciation, and some power relay circuits. Hope this helps, ed (ex-airline avionics engineer) -------- 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 May 20 10:13:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chris Jardine Subject: Re: DC Voltages Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Wood County Telephone Company Date: 20 May 96 10:13:17 Message-ID: In Article, write: > I have a question about the 28VDC used on commercial aircraft. Are > there any special or unusual characteristics about this current? I > have a need to take the 28VDC and convert it to 12VDC in an aircraft, > any ideas? Rick, The first thing that we need to know is what the current requirements would be for this project. If you need a major amount of current (like for a starter motor, or anything in excess of about 30 Amps) you will be best to gain access to the batteries as many times 28 volts is simply 2 batteries in series and about 12V is available at a junction between the two batteries that make the series combination. Anything less and you can usually use some sort of voltage regulator system. It can be a linear pass regulator or a chopping/switching system using a transformer and some other control, like in your PC. It all depends on the minimum, normal, and maximum current load. Post a response and I'll see if I can make a recommendation. I am not certified to do any work on aircraft and I really don't know if there are any specific regulations reguarding any of my recommendations. I will say, however, that I do have a degree in Electrical Engineering and should be able to help. Chris Jardine CJ Electronics cjardine@wctc.net From kls Mon May 20 10:13:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Konrad Kelley Subject: Re: DC Voltages Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Details,Details Austin,Teaxs,USA Date: 20 May 96 10:13:17 Message-ID: In article , rwbaker@airmail.net writes: > I >have a need to take the 28VDC and convert it to 12VDC in an aircraft, >any ideas? > Hi, Rick I would go find an avionics shop that installs CD/tape players in the late model Mooneys, or twin Cessnas, King Air's, etc. They probably have something already worked out for this; maybe a FAA/PMA commercial kit. If you are not going to draw a lot of amps (i.e. jumpstarting an engine, running flap motors) , basically all that is needed is an appropriately sized resistor to drop 16V out before you supply whatever is is you're running. The more amps , the higher the wattage rating of the resistor needed to dissapate the excess energy without overheating and burning up. Konrad Kelley A&P Mechanic, Aerospace Engineering Student From kls Mon May 20 10:13:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dangrad@ix.netcom.com (Daniel J. Gradwohl) Subject: Re: DC Voltages Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 20 May 96 10:13:17 Message-ID: Rick Baker writes: > >I have a question about the 28VDC used on commercial aircraft. Are >there any special or unusual characteristics about this current? I >have a need to take the 28VDC and convert it to 12VDC in an aircraft, >any ideas? > Rick: It depends upon what kind of plane you're talking about. My plane (B727-100 and -200) have a 28VDC system which is primarily used for cockpit lighting. There is a female plug on the right-side rear wall of the cockpit (just below the APU panel) which has a 28VDC and a 120VAC label on it. HOWEVER, we run the airplane at 400 cycles/freqs so that might trash whatever equipment you plug into it. Hope that helps, Dan Gradwohl Ryan International Airlines B727 F/E IND From kls Mon May 20 10:13:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: James Horan Subject: Re: MD-80 vs. Super-80 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Horan Document Laboratory Date: 20 May 96 10:13:17 Message-ID: Grant C Lynde wrote: > > In article , > Scott D. Morris wrote: > >I've always wondered why American Airlines chooses to confuse things by > >referring to the MD-80 as a "Super-80". > > Because DC-9s got a bad rap for a while with the American flying public > for accidents that weren't the airframe's fault. So, in an effort to > spruce up the image and avoid the negative connotations the DC-9 had, > they "renamed" (not really) it the Super-80. I also remember that John McDonnell was not thrilled with the aircraft being called Douglass alone, instead of McDonnell Douglas. I remember a story that went around MAC/DAC about how McDonnell reversed the lettering on all the pencils because after it was sharpened the McDonell name came off and only Douglas Aircraft was left. He order the lettering to be flipped so that McDonnell stayed on the pencil and Douglas was sharpened away. From kls Mon May 20 10:13:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pierce@pat.mdc.com (Cole Pierce) Subject: Re: MD-80 vs. Super-80 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MDSSC Date: 20 May 96 10:13:18 Message-ID: . Hell, Eastern called their fleet of DC9s Whisperjets, and there was . nothing quiet about em! Airlines can call their aircraft pretty much . anything they so choose. Wasn't it the -727 that was called the Whisperjet??? gun one From kls Mon May 20 10:13:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of New South Wales Reply-To: tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au Date: 20 May 96 10:13:18 Message-ID: Tom Speer wrote: > > I doubt that causing a pitch up with the application of power is a major > design driver in the positioning of engines. I know of no flying > qualities requirement for this. Even if were required, the aircraft > speed stability may result in a pitch up even for engines mounted > some distance above the c.g. I believe there is a certification design requirement for an increase in thrust/power to cause a pitch up in order to cover the go-around from low altitude case. A nose down pitching moment close to the ground would be most undesireable whereas a nose up pitching moment will assist in rotating the aircraft to the go around attitude. Speed stability will only come into effect once airspeed has been increased. TM From kls Mon May 20 10:13:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: go.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: NNTP-Posting-Host: davidlpc.amiwest.com Lines: 14 > > Unfortunately, there is very little information currently available on the > effects of upper-surface blowing, no real study, to my knowledge, has ever > been undertaken. I have just been involved in a design group for a new Nonsense! I have a notebook full of technical papers published about the QSRA, YC-14 and Japanese ASKA Upper Surface Blowing (USB) aircraft. Quite a bit is known about USB, the trouble is, unless you have a severe STOL requirement, it isn't really worth all of the penalities that it imposes on your design. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Mon May 20 10:13:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 20 May 96 10:13:18 Message-ID: Don Stokes wrote: >kls@ohare.Chicago.COM writes: >>sources of noise reduction, MD also notes that the aft-mounted engines >>use the wing as a partial noise shield. > >Um, how? Most of the noise comes from just behind the tailpipe, where >there is a "tearing" effect between the core flow and the bypass flow. >Take a line from that area through the wing, and you find that for the >most part you have to go through the engine nacelle first. Actually, a great deal of engine noise does come from the intake side, and especially at lower thrust settings. Not quite as much with the IAE engines as with JT8D's (which have inlet guide vanes in front of the fan- one of the most effective hush-kitting procedures for pre-200 series JT8d's involves re-spacing these guide vanes) but still a non-trivial amount. FWIW- I've now ridden DC-9-90's (MD-90's) about half a dozen times. I hate them just as much as I hate all other DC-9's, but I must admit that they are extraordinarily quiet. IMO, they're even quieter inside than a 757. Still, the 5-across seating and low ceilings decrease my comfort more than the quiet enhances it. -- 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 May 21 11:10:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Patrick Ware Subject: Re: DC Voltages Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: SmartWare Date: 21 May 96 11:10:49 Message-ID: rwbaker@airmail.net wrote: > > I have a question about the 28VDC used on commercial aircraft. Are > there any special or unusual characteristics about this current? I > have a need to take the 28VDC and convert it to 12VDC in an aircraft, > any ideas? I can only speak for the 737 aircraft which derives it's 28vdc through transformer rectifiers off the ac busses. I would assume that in order to get 12vdc you wou need a different T/R and step it down even further. Patrick Ware pware@whytel.com From kls Tue May 21 11:10:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Patrick Ware Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: SmartWare Date: 21 May 96 11:10:50 Message-ID: billie durso wrote: > > I am new to this subscription so please bear with me. I was wondering > about the recent crash of the Valujet DC-9, and arrived at the > following question. This question applies to all of the elder > transports 727, 737, DC-9, DC-10... > > I am pretty sure that all of these earlier aircraft had mechanical > linkages to all of the primary flight control surfaces. I also am > pretty sure that these mechanical linkages were hydraulically boosted > to easy in control of the aircraft. Assuming a total power failure in > the aircraft, are these hydraulic boosters shutdown? If so the flight > surfaces would become excessively hard to control. As long as the cables are still attached and operating, no hydraulic assist is needed. Pull out the manual reversion checklist and get a good hold of the yoke. The rudder is usually operated by a seperate standby hydraulic system so it will be very useful in turns. Pitch can be controlled by an electric trim motor. Roll is controlled by cables and tabs on the ailerons. This is for the 737. I am not qualified to speak on the DC-9. Patrick Ware pware@whytel.com From kls Tue May 21 11:10:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@barder.Princeton.EDU (Pablo Wangermann) Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Laboratory for Control and Automation Princeton University Date: 21 May 96 11:10:50 Message-ID: In article , John Witherspoon wrote: >Somebody wrote: > >>>The report also states that estimated development cost for Boeing's >>>747-600X is $2 billion, while Airbus would >>>have to develop an all new aircraft at a cost of $8-12 billion. > >I would think this means that Boeing would have to be crazy NOT to >build the plane, whereas Airbus would be crazy TO build the plane. >I can see the Qantas planes now -- with "Bigger Top" painted on them. > >A Boeing 6-fold cost advantage would seem insurmountable to me -- am >I missing something here? It all depends if Airbus can create an aircraft that is _significantly_ better than a 747 dervivative so that it makes 6 to 12 times the earnings. While the A320 has sold well, it didn't kill the 737 or MD80 series. However, both the 777 and A340 have effectively killed MD11 sales (unless MD have something up their sleeves.) Frankly, I can't see what new technology or design Airbus could apply to a VHCT to make it that much better than a 747X, short of a flying wing proposal (see some of Airbus' studies in the last few years) or a decision to a make a significantly _larger_ aircraft to capture the very top end of the market (aimed at intra-asian and a few other routes). I think most airlines would love Airbus to develop a 747 competitor to keep prices down and spur Boeing. From an economic point of view, it makes more sense for Airbus to plow the money into derivatives of of A300, A310, A320, A330 and A340 to keep them all competitive. (See Boeing and the 737 for a great example of how to keep a product successful.) Politics, however, may still strongly influence a decision to cry to capture the "top" of the market. John Wangermann From kls Tue May 21 11:10:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Snow Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 May 96 11:10:50 Message-ID: On 20 May 1996, billie durso wrote: > I am pretty sure that all of these earlier aircraft had mechanical > linkages to all of the primary flight control surfaces. I also am > pretty sure that these mechanical linkages were hydraulically boosted > to easy in control of the aircraft. Assuming a total power failure in > the aircraft, are these hydraulic boosters shutdown? If so the flight > surfaces would become excessively hard to control. If anyone out there > has any experience with the design of these aircraft please give me an > answer about this. Could a fire in the main fusebox cause a total > power fialure throughout th e aircraft.? Let me know. Thanks > Speaking only about the B727, of which I have a flight manual (an old piedmont manual), there is a method of control called manual reversion. Manual reversion is where the trim tabs on the control surfaces fly the surface into position responding to a control wheel deflection. The checklist to fly this procedure is very short: "MANUAL FLIGHT CONTROL, LOSS OF HYD 'A' AND 'B'. NOTE: Larger control forces and movements should be anticipated. Observe yaw damper limitations. Avoid crosswind or turbulence. SYSYEM A RUDDER HYD SWITCH - OFF (STANDBY RUDDER ON) LANDING FLAPS - 15 (SEE ALTERNATE FLAP EXTENSION, PP. 1-307-8.) BUG SPEED - VREF FOR 15 FLAPS. GPWS INHIBIT SWITCH - INHIBIT (LOGBOOK WRITE-UP REQD) ANTI-SKID - ON NOTE: A full stop landing can be made easily with brake accumulator only. Use steady brake pressure and hold. Do not pump. Use pneumatic brake pressure as a last resort; see Pneumatic Brake Operation, p. 1-303-7. In the systems description section, page 12-10-1 "With bost hydraulic systems unavailable, movement of the control wheel moves the inboard aileron control tabs which 'fly' the inboard ailerons. With flaps extended, movement of the inboard ailerons mechanically moves the outboard ailerons." hope this helps some ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie Ex Northwest Arlns ESE, MSP Ramp, Green Concourse FAA PPL, IR, and ADX(in training) B727 Page Curator From kls Tue May 21 11:10:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Engines for B747X Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Date: 21 May 96 11:10:50 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >On the surface, this seems like a major blow for Rolls. However, >several likely 747-500X/600X customers already have Rolls-powered 777s >on order. With the GE/Pratt joint venture, Rolls will offer the only >engine that can power both the 777 and the 747-500X/600X. That seems >like a major advantage for Rolls. How much commonality is there between the RB211-524 used on the 747-400 and the Trent 700 that may be used on the 747-500X/600X? In particular is there likely to be any advantage to Rolls due to there being a few airlines that have has Rolls powered 747s but not Trent powered 777s that might buy the 747-500/600X. (I am thinking British Airways and perhaps Qantas) 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 Tue May 21 11:10:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.energy,sci.environment Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: Re: [Q] what is the energy consumption of several airliners ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: I speak for nobody but myself Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Date: 21 May 96 11:10:51 Message-ID: [posted and mailed] On 20 May 96 09:54:38 , C++ Freak wrote: >For a letter to an environmental group in Holland I want to know the >energy consumption and the exhaust of CO2, NOx and un or partially burnt >fuel of airliners like : >Anyway, can somebody help me with the data ? It's been a long time since I last did any chemistry, and this doesn't directly answer your question, but FWIW I'll quote some figures I have at hand. According to the 1992 Annual Report (p. 52) of the BDLI (the German Aerospace Industries Association), "anthropogenous emissions in the Federal Republic of Germany" split up as follows by source: CO2 UHC CO NOx Powerplants and District 34.7 1.9 0.6 27.7 Heating Plants Industry 23.9 14.6 18.7 10.7 Private 24.2 6.8 21.5 4.3 Households Automobile 14.6 72.4 56.7 49.5 Traffic Civil Air 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.6 Traffic Other Traffic 2.1 4.0 2.3 7.2 Key: CO2: Carbon Dioxide UHC: Unburnt Hydrocarbons CO: Carbon Monoxide NOx: Nitrogen Oxides The source for these figures appears to be Deutsche Airbus. I have no idea whether or not they make sense; I'm just reproducing them "as is" (hopefully without any typo's). However, *if* these figures are correct, it appears environmentalists can't really pin the blame for global warming on the air-transport industry. ;) -- Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk [Personal Page] [Department] From kls Tue May 21 11:10:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: conly@bvsd.k12.co.us (Conly David) Subject: Re: Mothballed Airliners and other aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Date: 21 May 96 11:10:51 Message-ID: Geoff Moran (gmoran@senet.com.au) wrote: : I would be gratefull for any information relating to aircfaft graveyards : in the United States containing thousands of civilian and military aircraft : no longer used. In particular I would like to know if they can be visited : by the general public, and if so, where are they? Are the aircraft : accessible? My son and I think these sites are aircraft heaven and if : worthwhile would like to plan a trip. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona is "the" graveyard for the Air Force's planes (all of their planes.) There is every kind of aircraft there ranging from WWII propeller planes to 707's. They offer tourson the weekends which are really great. They bus you around the base and let you get out and run around the aircraft. It is really interesting! You and your son would love it. If you want more info just write back! David Conly conly@bvsd.k12.co.us -- David C. Conly | Flying. One part aptitude, one | part altitude, and two parts conly@bvsd.k12.co.us | attitude. From kls Tue May 21 11:10:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: GKXJ10A@prodigy.com (Michael Miller) Subject: Re: Mothballed Airliners and other aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Date: 21 May 96 11:10:51 Message-ID: I was recently in Tucson Arizona, and saw two major aircraft storage facilities: 1) Pima(?) facility at Marana is NW of Tucson, and is visible in the distance from Interstate 10. My parents tried to get in once, and were turned away at the gate. 2) Davis-Monthan AFB has a great number of aircraft stored, and publicly accessable roads running by and through the base allow you to see many of these aircraft. At one point I saw around 20 F-14s, 30 F-15s, and (it seemed like) over 500 F-4s in storage (I also saw F-4s flying around D-M). At another point you can see the "boneyard"; I recognized parts of numerous DC-6s and B-57s, and (for some strange reason) a bunch of city buses. While you're in Tucson, be sure to check out some other interesting stuff: 1) Arizona Air Guard operates F-16s out of Tucson International (looked to be 50-55 aircraft); they were running quite active operations one Wednesday morning when I was waiting to fly out. 2) Pima Air Museum, near D-M AFB, has the best collection I've seen, other than the Air Force Museum at Dayton. They have an especially good collection of large transports. Michael Miller - Jacksonville Florida |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) Internet: Michael_Miller@PRODIGY.COM /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;' Prodigy: GKXJ10A |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\ '---''(_/--' (_/-' From kls Tue May 21 11:10:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Vince Horan Subject: Re: Mothballed Airliners and other aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: B&CE Date: 21 May 96 11:10:51 Message-ID: In article , Geoff Moran writes >I would be gratefull for any information relating to aircfaft graveyards >in the United States containing thousands of civilian and military aircraft >no longer used. In particular I would like to know if they can be visited >by the general public, and if so, where are they? Are the aircraft >accessible? My son and I think these sites are aircraft heaven and if >worthwhile would like to plan a trip. I have a fair bit of information on locations, unfortunately not much on accessability. The big one is at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ where I believe there is still an organised tour. I will e-mail you more info in a few days. If anyone has specific queries on this subject I will attempt to answer. I also always looking for updates on stored airliners, so if anyone has been to Mojave, Kingman, Marana, Sherman-Grayson, Tucson, Las Vegas, Avra Valley, Chandler - to name a few places where old airliners are kept, then please contact me. Cheers all, Vince Horan email: Horan@BandCE.demon.co.uk ---------------------------------------------------------- Gatwick Aviation Society http://www.totavia.com/hawkeye ---------------------------------------------------------- Old Airliners http://www.totavia.com/hawkeye/aviation.html From kls Tue May 21 11:10:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: onat@turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Onat Ahmet) Subject: Re: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Dept. of Electr., Kyoto Univ., Japan Date: 21 May 96 11:10:52 Message-ID: In article bradg@io.org writes: >> >> Actually the Aural warning for an engine fire and other things are inhibited >> during the T/O phase of flight. The reason for this is the pilot has many >> other things to worry about the fire can wait. The pilots first priority is >> ALWAYS to FLY THE PLANE first. Fires can be dealt with later. But does not the fire render the plane more unflyable the more it is allowed to burn? -- | Ahmet ONAT Kyoto Univ. Japan | | E-mail : onat@kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp | | WWW page : http://turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp/staff/onat.html | | My 6 leg walker, RC airplanes & more in home page | From kls Tue May 21 11:10:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chris Hall Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Airborne Display Limited Date: 21 May 96 11:10:52 Message-ID: In article , billie durso writes > >I am new to this subscription so please bear with me. I was wondering >about the recent crash of the Valujet DC-9, and arrived at the >following question. This question applies to all of the elder >transports 727, 737, DC-9, DC-10... > > I am pretty sure that all of these earlier aircraft had mechanical >linkages to all of the primary flight control surfaces. I also am >pretty sure that these mechanical linkages were hydraulically boosted >to easy in control of the aircraft. Assuming a total power failure in >the aircraft, are these hydraulic boosters shutdown? If so the flight >surfaces would become excessively hard to control. If anyone out there >has any experience with the design of these aircraft please give me an >answer about this. Could a fire in the main fusebox cause a total >power fialure throughout th e aircraft.? Let me know. Thanks You are right that it is normal to have a boosted mechanical linkage from the controls to the surfaces. The boosting is normally done hydraulicaly and is independant of the aircraft's electrical power system. The huydraulic power is obtained from engine mounted pumps, but depending on the aircraft type, can have backup systems:- A pump on the auxiliary power unit. An electrically driven pump from the main battery bus. A wind driven pump from a gravity operated drop down emergency generator. If all these fail, it is still possible to fly the aircraft manually, although the control forces will be very high. -- Chris Hall From kls Tue May 21 11:10:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Cameron Hines Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Date: 21 May 96 11:10:52 Message-ID: John Witherspoon wrote: >Somebody wrote: > > >I would think this means that Boeing would have to be crazy NOT to >build the plane, whereas Airbus would be crazy TO build the plane. >I can see the Qantas planes now -- with "Bigger Top" painted on them. > Qantas doesn't have "Big Top" on there aircraft it's Singapore Airlines on there 747-300s (There -400s are "Mega Tops"!!!) From kls Tue May 21 11:10:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: 747 Question. Are there any EFIS experts out there? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of New South Wales Reply-To: tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au Date: 21 May 96 11:10:52 Message-ID: The VS on the -400 is sourced from the IRS but is passed through the Air Data Computer on its way to the PFD so it may well be smoothed by the ADC. You can check this by failing the ADC and the VS display will be removed from the PFD. The best way to resolve the bet is to obtain a look at the System Description Document (SDD) in your company's technical library. I used to fly for Cathay Pacific and did my -400 endorsement in 1988 but the system should not have changed too much. Regards, Tony Maddern From kls Tue May 21 11:10:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@wren.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 21 May 96 11:10:52 Message-ID: In article "P. Wezeman" writes: > On 9 May 1996, Karl Swartz wrote: > > The biggest point of controversy seems to be the cockpit. Boeing > > wants to keep the foreward section of the new models the same as the > > 747-400 to minimize costs. Some airlines are asking for cockpits more > > like that of the 777, possibly going as far as having a common type > > rating. > Is there any precedent for a common type rating for aircraft having > different numbers of engines? Is this true for the Airbus A330-A340 ? > If a common type rating for the B777 and B747-500 and -600 is allowed, would > present B777 rating holders be allowed to fly all three aircraft or would > the combined rating be a new type rating? Well, it's not exactly what you're asking for, but a friend of mine used to fly FO on the B757/B767, with a common type rating. While most of the cockpit instruments were the same, the engines were completely different (RB211 vs. CF6), used different parameters for power settings (N1 vs. EPR(?)), engine start procedures, etc. He always said that when he got a B757 line (he was mainly B767), he had to spend time making sure he had the engine procedure differences down. I guess what I'm saying is that the number of engines may not be as big a deal compared to the differences in how the engines are operated. 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 May 21 11:10:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jpellicc@abacus.bates.edu (Joseph Pelliccia) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, ME Date: 21 May 96 11:10:53 Message-ID: The two Connies are parked near Lewiston-Auburn Municipal airport (LEW) in Auburn Maine. Every once in a while at local airshows, they are opened to the public for tours. Joe P -- Joseph G. Pelliccia PP-SEL-IA * "A beginning is a very delicate Department of Biology * time" Bates College, Lewiston, ME 04240 * - DUNE From kls Tue May 21 11:10:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Acavitt@mindspring.com (A.C.) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Date: 21 May 96 11:10:53 Message-ID: tlong@mail.vcnet.com (Tim Long) wrote: >I seem to remember around 1982 or so, PSA (later merged into USAir) >started flying the BA146. Lots of bragging about being the quietest >commercial jet aircraft flying at the time.I know they're still marketed >as the Avro RJ 100 or some such, but why so few of them? They would only >be 14 years old or so; you would expect them to still be flying/common. >What caused them to not become popular? Reliability? Cost of maintaining 4 >engines? The aircraft is a really nice aircraft. Quiet, roomy, good all around aircraft. However the maintenance is the biggest problems that it has. Many parts are hard to get, expensive, and with 4 engines you have 4X as many problems. Sense there are few around and flying, parts are not in great demand. Sometimes it takes some time to get those parts. Unlike a 737. The next problems is the speed and cruise performance. Burns alot of gas for 100 seats. Not the fastest aircraft around either. MX and just plain operating cost is the big problems with the aircraft! That is why so many people have dropped the aircraft. AC From kls Tue May 21 11:10:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s925609@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Kevin Cheng) Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Reply-To: s925609@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU Date: 21 May 96 11:10:53 Message-ID: glenn@netway.net () writes: > Does anyone know if Northwest Airlines operates any 747SP's ? > I heard someone say that he saw one July 1995 in Detroit. Glenn, There's none that I know of, I have an entire list of NWA 747 airframes here, and there's no SPs listed. * 10 x -451s * 3 x -151s * 17 x -251Bs * 3 x -227B * 6 x -251Fs * 1 x -2J9Fs total 41 747 airframes, current as of March 1995. Kev -- .------------------------------.---.---------------------------. | --==[ Kevin Cheng ]==-- | | | There are only two types: | |s925609@minyos.its.RMiT.edu.Au|\X/| fighters and targets. | `------------------------------'---`---------------------------' From kls Tue May 21 11:10:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ValuJet flight 592 (DC-9-32) crash near Miami on Saturday, May 11 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 21 May 96 11:10:53 Message-ID: In article rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >My opinion of general media news coverage has reached a new low. Two days >from now, there will be no coverage, unless the salvage effort produces some >pretty pictures or human drama. Well, I got that one wrong--there's too much fun to be had in destroying the airline for the media to let go of this one! :-) -- 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 May 21 11:10:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gcaron@mack.Rt66.com (Terra Corp.) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rt66.COM, Public Internet Access in New Mexico Date: 21 May 96 11:10:53 Message-ID: Tony Maddern (tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au) wrote: : Tom Speer wrote: : > : > I doubt that causing a pitch up with the application of power is a major : > design driver in the positioning of engines. I know of no flying : > qualities requirement for this. Even if were required, the aircraft : > speed stability may result in a pitch up even for engines mounted : > some distance above the c.g. : I believe there is a certification design requirement for an increase : in thrust/power to cause a pitch up in order to cover the go-around : from low altitude case. A nose down pitching moment close to the : ground would be most undesireable whereas a nose up pitching moment : will assist in rotating the aircraft to the go around attitude. Speed : stability will only come into effect once airspeed has been increased. : TM No such requirement. The only real requirement is that the a/c remain stable and controllable at all throttle settings and in all normal configurations. The fact is high mounted engines have been demonstrated in the YC-14. The upper surface blowing (Coanda effect) had many benefits related to the STOL requirements for this a/c. Real nice plane, but it (and the more conventional YC-15) lost out in budget battles to the good old reliable C-130. Airliners, on the other hand, have one all-purpose goal -- to make money. The high mounted engines cost more to operate (maintain) due to the more difficult access, and have no significant cost benefits. If it isn't cost effective, airlines won't buy it. OTOH, engines *are* mounted forward of the wing for sound engineering reasons. It has to do with torsional and flutter modes. Gerry -- Gerry Caron "Opinions are mine, not my employer's." gcaron@rt66.com PH: 800-328-1995 or 505-884-2321 Terra Corp. ABQ FAX: 505-884-2384 From kls Tue May 21 11:10:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: gerhard@onramp.net Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: On-Ramp; Individual Internet Connections; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA Date: 21 May 96 11:10:54 Message-ID: >The main gear attach to the wing, not the fuselage. There is plenty >of room remaining on the belly. The gear retracts into the fuselage. This leaves the area beneath the cargo compartments for dumping the water. From kls Tue May 21 11:10:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Date: 21 May 96 11:10:54 Message-ID: Jay Selman (avfoto@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : "John O'Brien" wrote: : I could be wrong but I believe the T-tail evolved in modern airliners as a : result of keeping the horizontal stabilizer out of the exhaust path of : planes built with rear-mounted engines. Offhand, I'd reckon to say that : all airliners with engines on the aft fuselage have t-tails, or at least : some variation of that. Well, the Sud-Aviation Caravelle does not: the horizontal tailplane is mounted on the vertical tail, just above the fuselage. -- Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE* FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus- From kls Tue May 21 11:10:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of New South Wales Reply-To: tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au Date: 21 May 96 11:10:54 Message-ID: The "probe" on the top of the 707 fin is the high frequency radio (HF) antenna. From kls Tue May 21 11:10:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Your Organization Date: 21 May 96 11:10:54 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6 > >>>Will there ever be another T-Tailed airliner >>>after the current ones become obsolete ? I know its all > >>I could be wrong but I believe the T-tail evolved in modern airliners as a >>result of keeping the horizontal stabilizer out of the exhaust path of >>planes built with rear-mounted engines. Offhand, I'd reckon to say that >>all airliners with engines on the aft fuselage have t-tails, or at least >>some variation of that. > The two most recent new Citation business jet designs from Cessna are T-tail aircraft. The CitationJet and the Citation X (ten) both have T tails like the Citation 3 (now known as the Citation VI and VII). Rumor has it the next Citation will be a T-tail. All other Citation business jets have what is called a cruciform tail, where the stabilizer connects to the fin part way up the fin. From kls Tue May 21 11:10:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 21 May 96 11:10:54 Message-ID: dwarren5@ix.netcom.com (billie durso) wrote: > >I am new to this subscription so please bear with me. I was wondering >about the recent crash of the Valujet DC-9, and arrived at the >following question. This question applies to all of the elder >transports 727, 737, DC-9, DC-10... > >Assuming a total power failure in >the aircraft, are these hydraulic boosters shutdown? Aircraft hydraulic systems have, by necessity, a lot of redundancy and failsafe capabilities. Generally, hydraulic systems are split, so that one part of the system is powered by a pump on one engine, another part of the system is powered by another engine, and so that the plane is controllable even with one or more systems disabled. A good description of the 4 hydraulic systems used on the L-1011, including which engine powers each and what components are powered by each, for example, can be found at: http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011/l1011_specs.html The description for the L-1011 also shows that the hydraulic systems are generally "re-configurable" to a certain extent. For example, if one engine shuts down, the hydraulic system it powers can be powered by another engine via a transfer pump. Some aircraft provide an electrical pump as a backup, and usually the APU can provide hydraulic power, or even a ram-air driven turbine can power a system in the event that none of the engines nor the APU are functioning and the plane is gliding. Now, it goes without saying that some aircraft have more redundancy than others- the L-1011 has 4 hydraulic systems, but the DC-10 (of similar size, power, range, etc.) only has 3, for example. Still, loss of all electrical power should not, by itself, totally disable aircraft hydraulics. Since the question was originally directed at the ValueJet crash, I should state that I think its wrong to speculate much on what happened. It will take quite a while to sort it out (given the degree of the destruction) and no doubt MANY rumors will circulate before the real answer is found (if it is ever found). -- 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 May 21 11:10:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: anzac@indirect.com (Richard Ferrell) Subject: Can You ID this Aircraft? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sandia National Labs Date: 21 May 96 11:10:54 Message-ID: I saw this Aircraft at Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, Intl Sunport, it was parked away from most aircraft. on 5-14-96 It had 4 Engines mounted on the rear Part of the Fuseloge 2 on each side Had a T-Tail looked to be about the same size as a 737. Had no Markings that i could see. any ideas? From kls Tue May 21 11:10:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Can You ID this Aircraft? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 21 May 96 11:10:55 Message-ID: >I saw this Aircraft at Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, Intl Sunport, it >was parked away from most aircraft. on 5-14-96 It had 4 Engines mounted on the >rear Part of the Fuseloge 2 on each side Had a T-Tail looked to be about the >same size as a 737. Had no Markings that i could see. any ideas? The four aft-mounted engines mean it's almost surely a VC-10, the similar-appearing Ilyushin-62, or a Lockheed C-140 JetStar. The JetStar would be an obvious guess for an Air Force Base, but it has a cruciform tail (like a Caravelle) instead of a T-tail, plus it's much smaller. (The JetStar was one of the first biz-jets.) The other two are somewhat bigger than a 737, roughly the size of a 707. I would have guessed an Il-62 (probably an Il-62M) since they do appear at odd places in the US flying Russian dignitaries. However, about seven years ago I flew into Albuquerque (co-located with Kirtland AFB) and saw a similar plane. I asked if it was an Il-62 and someone told me it was an RAF VC-10, which apparently is a somewhat frequenct visitor, either on training flights or trans- porting troops for training exercises. (I can't remember which.) -- 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 May 21 11:10:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: whoscheit@aol.com (WHoscheit) Subject: Russian/Soviet/Aeroflot Information Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: whoscheit@aol.com (WHoscheit) Date: 21 May 96 11:10:55 Message-ID: I am a Russian/Soviet/Aeroflot enthusiast. A friend is travelling to Moscow next month, and I was wondering if anyone can recommend any literature, photo books, guides, (such as Monino or other air museums), or if anyone has any contact information for Aviaexport or any of the design bureaus. He has kindly agreed to bring back all he can find, but I want to make sure I can provide as much information and direction in advance of his trip. Please respond via e-mail. All genuine respondents will receive my complimentary Aeroflot IL-96-300 I designed for Microsoft Flight Simulator 5.1. Thanks in advance to all who can help. Bill Hoscheit From kls Tue May 21 11:10:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: XXFV73A@prodigy.com (Ken Thurlow) Subject: 28 volts DC on today's aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Date: 21 May 96 11:10:55 Message-ID: The DC voltage on today's transport jets is the output of transfromer rectifiers which are powered by the 115 volt 400 hz generators. There is nothing special about this 28volt DC source. If you have a device that will drop it down to 12 volts you have a realitivly stable 12 volt DC source. This 28 volt DC output is then feed thru circuit breakers to all of the user systems that need it, many in fact most of these systems will step it down and filter it further. From kls Thu May 23 10:05:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Vince Horan Subject: WWW: Surviving Old Airliners info Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: B&CE Date: 23 May 96 10:05:31 Message-ID: My 'Surviving Old Airliners & Transports' is now located at URL http://www.totavia.com/hawkeye/aviation.html You will find lists of surviving Argosy, Boeing C-97, Bristol Freighter, Britannia, Carvair, some DC-3s, Electra, Martin 404, Antonov An-8 & An- 12, Vickers VC-10 plus some pictures of these, plus some other pictures. More types to come on-line soon & more pictures soon! Stop by, check my info out, if you have some sightings of old airliners & transports then let me know. Vince Horan email: Horan@BandCE.demon.co.uk ---------------------------------------------------------- Gatwick Aviation Society http://www.totavia.com/hawkeye ---------------------------------------------------------- Old Airliners http://www.totavia.com/hawkeye/aviation.html From kls Thu May 23 10:05:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Telepath Date: 23 May 96 10:05:31 Message-ID: In article , FLKF50A@prodigy.com says... > >Does anyone know what the status of Maine Coast Airlines Lockheed 1649 >Connies is? I've heard that they have two near Portland Maine and one in >Fla. where it made an emergency landing en-route to join the others in >Maine. Are they being maintained? Any palns for future flights? Thanks >for any info. > > Perhaps this is not specific enough for you. But there IS an airworthy Connie on the pad at Altus Municipal (OK) right now. Done up rather nicely in MATS livery with polished hull. The reason for the puzzlement is that I heard that there were only two examples left flying. Brian From kls Thu May 23 10:05:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kcooper@hpax.cup.hp.com (Kevin Cooper) Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Hewlett Packard Cupertino Site Date: 23 May 96 10:05:32 Message-ID: Kevin Cheng (s925609@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU) wrote: : There's none that I know of, I have an entire list of : NWA 747 airframes here, and there's no SPs listed. : * 10 x -451s : * 3 x -151s : * 17 x -251Bs : * 3 x -227B : * 6 x -251Fs : * 1 x -2J9Fs Obviously some of these were bought from other airlines. Who were the 3 227Bs purchased by originally? And the 2J9F? Kevin Cooper From kls Thu May 23 10:05:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 23 May 96 10:05:32 Message-ID: >Obviously some of these were bought from other airlines. Who were the >3 227Bs purchased by originally? And the 2J9F? There's a complete (as of several years ago) list of Boeing's customer codes available at http://www.chicago.com/airliners, the home page for this newsgroup. To save you a bit of work this time, 27 is Braniff and J9 is the Iranian Air Force. -- 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 May 23 10:05:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Snow Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 May 96 10:05:33 Message-ID: I have a fleet list page in work for all NWA fleet aircraft at http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie/nwafleet/fleet.html Its not complete in that the B747 Freighter/DC9s model pages are not done yet. However, I have never seen in any NW history book any blurb on the B747-SP, or in the issue of Airliners a year back that had an article on the 747SP. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie Ex Northwest Arlns ESE, MSP Ramp, Green Concourse FAA PPL, IR, and ADX(in training) B727 Page Curator From kls Thu May 23 10:05:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: s925609@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Kevin Cheng) Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Reply-To: s925609@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU Date: 23 May 96 10:05:33 Message-ID: s925609@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Kevin Cheng) writes: > There's none that I know of, I have an entire list of > NWA 747 airframes here, and there's no SPs listed. ... > total 41 747 airframes, current as of March 1995. Just an amendment, I forgot to mention that the list was obtained from the South-East Asia sector, so it won't include all the other airframes that fly out of St.P. But as far as I know, SPs were not in the inventory. Kev -- .------------------------------.---.---------------------------. | --==[ Kevin Cheng ]==-- | | | There are only two types: | |s925609@minyos.its.RMiT.edu.Au|\X/| fighters and targets. | `------------------------------'---`---------------------------' From kls Thu May 23 10:05:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: qtrinkle@znet.com (Kevin Trinkle) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The PSA History Page Date: 23 May 96 10:05:34 Message-ID: tlong@mail.vcnet.com (Tim Long) wrote: >I seem to remember around 1982 or so, PSA (later merged into USAir) >started flying the BA146. Lots of bragging about being the quietest >commercial jet aircraft flying at the time.I know they're still marketed >as the Avro RJ 100 or some such, but why so few of them? They would only >be 14 years old or so; you would expect them to still be flying/common. >What caused them to not become popular? Reliability? Cost of maintaining 4 >engines? PSA started taking delivery of their 146s in 1984 (I have a promotional brochure about it, boasting proudly about the 'Smiliner'). They started having a few problems on the engines (they constantly were being trucked from the hangar at SAN to the Airmotive facility, 15 miles away. PSA's dedicated BAe mechanics even admitted the engines were 'crap'.) USAir continued to operate the 146 on the old PSA routes until 1991, when they shut down the entire network. All the 23 remaining 146s were parked in Mohave, where 15 still sit. Most of the 8 that USAir sold are out of the USA, however ASA's first BAe-146 (N812AS) is an ex-PSA aircraft, as well as the two that Jet Aspen will be using when they start up. KT From kls Thu May 23 10:05:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 23 May 96 10:05:34 Message-ID: In article tlong@mail.vcnet.com (Tim Long) writes: >I seem to remember around 1982 or so, PSA (later merged into USAir) >started flying the BA146. Lots of bragging about being the quietest >commercial jet aircraft flying at the time.I know they're still marketed >as the Avro RJ 100 or some such, but why so few of them? They would only >be 14 years old or so; you would expect them to still be flying/common. >What caused them to not become popular? Reliability? Cost of maintaining > 4 engines? The two original US purchasers of the BAe 146 were PSA and AirCal. Both these companies were taken over (US Air and American respectively). The 146 probably did not fit the overall fleet strategy of either the big carriers, as it was designed for regional route utilization only. I also remember that American was not happy with maintenance manhours (and reportedly cancelled BAe ATP orders as a result). Recently the descendents of the 146 have made a sort of comeback, and are operated by Business Express, ASA and Tristar in the US. Both Air Canada Connector and Canadian Regional use them in Canada. Certainly the 146/Avro RJ is quite popular/common in Europe, where it is more suited to their shorter sectors and route profiles. On an historical note, I see parallels here to both the Viscount and the BAC-111 which were relatively successful around the world but never really made it in the US. I leave you to draw your own political conclusions (if any) :) regards Brian Maddison From kls Thu May 23 10:05:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 23 May 96 10:05:35 Message-ID: >The two original US purchasers of the BAe 146 were PSA and AirCal. The first US airline to take delivery of a BAe 146, and in fact the first airline worldwide to operate the 146-200 in service, was Air Wisconsin. Their first was delivered June 16, 1983, and operated its first revenue flight on June 27 (from Fort Wayne, Indiana, to Chicago) almost a year before PSA got their first 146. -- 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 May 23 10:05:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Date: 23 May 96 10:05:35 Message-ID: The BAe146/Acro RJ may be uncommon/unpopular in your neck of the woods, but the majority of aircraft once stored in the desert are now back in service around the world. Not only that, but sales are now at an all-time high for the RJ - the Woodford production line is sold out through the end of 1997 and Avro is considering adding capacity! Steve From kls Thu May 23 10:05:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "R.S. Solene" Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 May 96 10:05:36 Message-ID: Acavitt@mindspring.com (A.C.) writes: > The aircraft is a really nice aircraft. Quiet, roomy, good all around > aircraft. However the maintenance is the biggest problems that it > has. Many parts are hard to get, expensive, and with 4 engines you > have 4X as many problems. Sense there are few around and flying, > parts are not in great demand. Sometimes it takes some time to get > those parts. Unlike a 737. Why didn't the airplane's designer's realize that this aircraft would present 4X as many maintenance problems? Why didn't the airlines? Why wasn't the aircraft designed for just two higher thrust power plants? I remember asking myself these questions when I watched these planes enter service with PSA in large numbers and I couldn't help but wonder what its advantage was. From kls Thu May 23 10:05:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: worldbank Date: 23 May 96 10:05:37 Message-ID: tlong@mail.vcnet.com (Tim Long) wrote: >I seem to remember around 1982 or so, PSA (later merged into USAir) >started flying the BA146. Lots of bragging about being the quietest >commercial jet aircraft flying at the time.I know they're still marketed >as the Avro RJ 100 or some such, but why so few of them? They would only >be 14 years old or so; you would expect them to still be flying/common. >What caused them to not become popular? Reliability? Cost of maintaining 4 >engines? The BAe 146 is still marketed as the Avro RJ series. (The RJ100 is one of 3 versions on offer, with a longer fuselage as on the 146-300.) They are indeed exceptionally quiet. Ultra-noise sensitive Orange County allows them unlimited access. Their combination of quietness and short-field performance gives them access to many small, noise-sensitive airports near city centers (until recently, they were the only jet allowed into London City airport; others include Belfast, Florence; on the sheer performance side, they are the only jet allowed into Aspen airport). When configured with 5-abreast seating, they are also very comfortable, since the fuselage is actually wider than on a DC-9/MD-80. Why so few? Well, define "few". Over 280 have been built so far. That's nothing to the 737's 2,800, but its more than the One-Eleven and Caravelle. More than the Fokker 100 (but not more than the combined F28/F100 total). They continue to be in production, with large recent orders from Swissair (10 RJ100s for operation by subsidiary Crossair, supplementing 4 smaller RJ85s), Lufthansa (15 RJ85s), and SABENA (23 RJ85s for operation by subsidiary DAT). Early-build aircraft did have quite a few problems which made them less than spectacular from a maintenance perspective. Many were bought or leased by small airlines with insufficient resources; when these airlines went under, a glut of used aircraft was created. Also, BAe was not the most efficient manufacturer in the 1980s; indeed, the 146 was built on two different production lines, at Hatfield and Woodford. These problems have now been resolved. Swissair and Lufthansa would not have ordered them if they had still been unreliable (remember Swissair already operated Fokker 100s at the time, while Lufthansa was strongly encouraged to buy Fokker 100s since Fokker at the time was owned by a German company). BAe has also improved its cost of manufacturing quite substantially, shutting the Hatfield line and making other improvements (something Fokker proved unable to do). They have also capped production at (if memory serves) 18 annually; this helps explain why "so few". BAe has also been very successful in remarketing the idle 146s. None are idle at this time, except for the remaining USAir aircraft (see below) and 5 Thai International aircraft. As for PSA: PSA started operating BAe 146s in 1984, not 1982. They operated 24 -200s as well as several -100s on short-term lease. One crashed after a disgruntled employee killed the pilots. USAir took them over when they bought PSA, but several were sold. USAir eventually parked the remaining 18 aircraft in the desert after it abandoned the California routes it acquired from PSA. They have been there since (with USAir making payments on the leases all the time). Recently, some have been returned to service (Jet Aspen leased several, as did Debonair, World Airways, and Titan in the UK). Stefano From kls Thu May 23 10:05:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 23 May 96 10:05:37 Message-ID: > What caused them to not become popular? Reliability? Cost of > maintaining 4 engines? The BAe 146 is still sold as the Avro 146. However, they have a huge fleet of unsold aircraft that are out on leases, plus all of USAir's aircraft are parked out in the desert. The operating cost of the 146 is rumored to be very high, in part due to engine reliability problems. I once talked to an AirCal mechanic who told me some real horror stories as to how many engines they were changing a week. I have also heard that when USAir took over PSA, they stripped the paint off the 146s, and operated them in a natural metal scheme, totally ignoring the fact that they were removing the corrosion protection. Hence, the aircraft in the desert will take a lot of rework to make them usable. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Thu May 23 10:05:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Date: 23 May 96 10:05:37 Message-ID: In article , Cameron Hines wrote: >John Witherspoon wrote: >> >>I would think this means that Boeing would have to be crazy NOT to >>build the plane, whereas Airbus would be crazy TO build the plane. >>I can see the Qantas planes now -- with "Bigger Top" painted on them. >> > >Qantas doesn't have "Big Top" on there aircraft it's Singapore Airlines on >there 747-300s (There -400s are "Mega Tops"!!!) > Qantas has 'Longreach' on their 747-400s. Qantas was founded in the Australian town of Longreach, and when they bought the 747-400 (the longest range passenger aircraft in the world at the time) they couldn't resist this. Hopefully they will manage to avoid puting 'Longerreach' on their 747-500s, if they buy some (which I guess they will). 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 Thu May 23 10:05:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Suren Ratwatte Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: n/a Date: 23 May 96 10:05:38 Message-ID: To the best of my knowledge, even though Airbus claims a common type rating for the 320/330/340 series, no airline operates it as such. Lufthansa does it with certain limitations I believe, don't know any details. I fly the A300-600 and 310-300. Practically identical flight decks, same engines and really no difference in handling. The way most airlines work their scheduling request systems, it's very unlikely that the situation would arise. -- Suren Ratwatte surenone@emirates.net.ae Phone:(971-4)482436 Fax :(971-4)484346 From kls Thu May 23 10:05:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Can You ID this Aircraft? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 23 May 96 10:05:39 Message-ID: Richard Ferrell wrote: > > I saw this Aircraft at Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, Intl Sunport, it > was parked away from most aircraft. on 5-14-96 It had 4 Engines mounted on the > rear Part of the Fuseloge 2 on each side Had a T-Tail looked to be about the > same size as a 737. Had no Markings that i could see. any ideas? Sounds like a Vickers VC-10 to me. The only other possibilities are an Il-62 (unlikely) or a Lockheed JetStar (which didn't have a T tail). ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Thu May 23 10:05:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Upul Abayasingha Subject: [Q] Required Fuel or trip fuel Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: cranfield university Date: 23 May 96 10:05:39 Message-ID: Hi .. I would like to know how the airlines calculate required fuel for a given jouney including reseve fuel, for long-haul flights . I know little bit about the theory using engine SFC. etc... How accurate is this method and what kind of safty factor airlines use? Is there any books regarding this matter, and any softwear available ? Thanks -- Upul Abayasingha Cranfield University E-mail: b.u.abayasingha@cranfield.ac.uk From kls Thu May 23 10:37:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.energy,sci.environment Path: bounce-back From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: [Q] what is the energy consumption of several airliners ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of New South Wales Reply-To: tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au Date: 23 May 96 10:37:32 Message-ID: On a long sector such as Los Angeles to Hong Kong the 747-400 uses 160K kilograms of fuel carrying 400 passengers over the 12000 kilometers. The fuel used is kerosene. >From memory, assuming 4 people to a car a fleet of 100 cars carrying the same 400 people over the same distance would use more fuel. Your figures appear to me to be pessimistic but I would be interested in your final conclusions. Info on emissions can be obtained from Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney or General Electric. There is currently a lot of pressure and competition to produce clean burn engines as environmental concerns and future emissions legislation are now a factor in an airline's engine selection procedure. From kls Thu May 23 10:37:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.energy,sci.environment Path: bounce-back From: C++ Freak Subject: Re: [Q] what is the energy consumption of several airliners ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Knoware Internet Date: 23 May 96 10:37:32 Message-ID: Of course, figures from Deutsche Airbus show a low environmental impact of air traffic. It is not the greatest: automobile traffic and fossil power plants are the worst, but according to other figures is is currently 2 % of the CO2 output which still seems low but still of concern because of: - increasing *rapidly* because air travel is getting cheaper and governments strongly subsidize airlines and airports - it affects the upper atmosphere which other polluters don't. And the state of the upper atmosphere probably affects the climate more than the lower atmosphere. Klaas From kls Thu May 23 10:37:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gsmoff@Mcs.Net (Gary S. Moffitt) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MCSNet Internet Services Date: 23 May 96 10:37:32 Message-ID: I am pretty sure that all of these earlier aircraft had mechanical > linkages to all of the primary flight control surfaces. I also am > pretty sure that these mechanical linkages were hydraulically boosted > to easy in control of the aircraft. Assuming a total power failure in > the aircraft, are these hydraulic boosters shutdown? If so the flight > surfaces would become excessively hard to control. If anyone out there > has any experience with the design of these aircraft please give me an > answer about this. Could a fire in the main fusebox cause a total > power fialure throughout th e aircraft.? The DC9 is somewhat unique in that it was designed to be flown without hydraulic power to any of the primary flight controls. The control yoke inputs actuate cables which actuate control tabs, the flight controls respond opposite to the tab movements. The control tab flies the control surface. This is one aircraft whose flight control forces do not change with loss of hydraulic power. There are of couse exceptions. On the MD80s (I am not ssure about older DC9s) there is hydraulic assist to the elevator in the nose down direction only to assist in stall recovery and there is hydraulic assist to the rudder which may be shut off with a lever on the pedestal. Neither of these hydraulic assists is necessary in normal flight. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Thu May 23 10:37:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: James Buongiovanni Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Good John's Shaperite Concepts Date: 23 May 96 10:37:33 Message-ID: billie durso wrote: > > I am new to this subscription so please bear with me. I was wondering > about the recent crash of the Valujet DC-9, and arrived at the > following question. This question applies to all of the elder > transports 727, 737, DC-9, DC-10... > > I am pretty sure that all of these earlier aircraft had mechanical > linkages to all of the primary flight control surfaces. I also am > pretty sure that these mechanical linkages were hydraulically boosted > to easy in control of the aircraft. Assuming a total power failure in > the aircraft, are these hydraulic boosters shutdown? If so the flight > surfaces would become excessively hard to control. If anyone out there > has any experience with the design of these aircraft please give me an > answer about this. Could a fire in the main fusebox cause a total > power fialure throughout th e aircraft.? Let me know. Thanks > > D.Warren The engine driven Hydraulic pumps on the DC-9 are mounted on the gear box of each engine. Even with total electrical failure the would still have had hydraulic power, they would'nt have had indication though. Also depending on how far out they were from the airport the crew would have select "low" for the engine pumps which is 1500 psi. Of course after an emergency they (the crew) would have immediately gone to high(3000psi) along with turning on the Aux pump and the Alt Gear Pump. The Ailerons are fly by tab. The only play hyd have is the flight spoilers once you turn the control wheel past a certain range. The rudder goes to manual once hyd press drops below a certain psi. Manual is harder but not impossible. The only hyd on the elevator is when you push the stick full forward(to recover a stall) the hyd power will drive the tabs down. That is know as Elevator power. One news article noted that the steps in the E&E compt were scorched. These steps are located next to the main aircraft batteries. If these had over heated from excessive charging could have cause an explosion its self. Battery temp sensor may have failed in that case. Just speculation. Hope it was of help. From kls Thu May 23 10:37:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 23 May 96 10:37:33 Message-ID: >dwarren5@ix.netcom.com (billie durso) wrote: >> >>I am new to this subscription so please bear with me. I was wondering >>about the recent crash of the Valujet DC-9, and arrived at the >>following question. This question applies to all of the elder >>transports 727, 737, DC-9, DC-10... >> >Now, it goes without saying that some aircraft have more redundancy than >others- the L-1011 has 4 hydraulic systems, but the DC-10 (of similar size, >power, range, etc.) only has 3, for example. Unlikely as it may seem, that fourth hyd system on the 1011 has made a difference. An EAL flight was at 10K feet when the front spool on the number two engine broke loose and augured forward. It destroyed lines to three of the four hyd systems, and damaged the fourth. They landed on the fourth. AIR, there was one other similar case. It was not really good design that put all those systems on the bulkhead ahead of the #2 fan. For clarification, hyd transfer pumps transfer power, not fluid. It is a hyd motor in one system driving a hyd pump in the other, so one is kept intact in case the other loses its fluid. I have been told that the DC-9 does not use hydraulics to move the control surfaces. Cables from the yoke move just the trim tabs. Sometimes you will see a DC-9 at the gate with one elevator up, and the other side down. They are moved by independent trim tabs. The aux hyd pump is turned on for the approach, but I believe that is only to move the flaps and gear. RD From kls Thu May 23 10:37:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 23 May 96 10:37:33 Message-ID: >Unlikely as it may seem, that fourth hyd system on the 1011 has made a >difference. An EAL flight was at 10K feet when the front spool on the >number two engine broke loose and augured forward. It destroyed lines >to three of the four hyd systems, and damaged the fourth. They landed >on the fourth. AIR, there was one other similar case. It was not >really good design that put all those systems on the bulkhead ahead of >the #2 fan. Perhaps it wasn't that great a design decision, but it was good enough to bring that Eastern L-1011 home. Compare to the DC-10 with only three hydraulic systems, all of them passing through the plane of the front spool (aka fan) of the #2 engine. When a cracked fan disk lets loose, shrapnel (formerly the fan blades) take out all three hydraulic systems ... an UA 232 does cartwheels in Sioux City. Only some truly remarkable piloting saved two-thirds of the people on board. -- 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 May 23 10:37:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pauldan@mindspring.com Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Reply-To: pauldan@mindspring.com Date: 23 May 96 10:37:33 Message-ID: dwarren5@ix.netcom.com (billie durso) wrote: >I am new to this subscription so please bear with me. I was wondering >about the recent crash of the Valujet DC-9, and arrived at the >following question. This question applies to all of the elder >transports 727, 737, DC-9, DC-10... > I am pretty sure that all of these earlier aircraft had mechanical >linkages to all of the primary flight control surfaces. I also am >pretty sure that these mechanical linkages were hydraulically boosted >to easy in control of the aircraft. Assuming a total power failure in >the aircraft, are these hydraulic boosters shutdown? If so the flight >surfaces would become excessively hard to control. If anyone out there >has any experience with the design of these aircraft please give me an >answer about this. Could a fire in the main fusebox cause a total >power fialure throughout th e aircraft.? Let me know. Thanks >D.Warren The DC-9 series will fly fine without electrical or hydraulic power The ailerons are a cable and tab system as well as the elevators The rudder is normally powered by a hydraulic pack but automatically reverts to a tab system with the loss of hydraulic pressure. The horizontal stabilizer is electric and cannot be used without the main busses powered. The landing gear can be lowered through a cable system. The speed brakes are hydraulic and are also used to augment roll control so roll won't be as effective but control wouldn't be a problem. I have never heard of a DC-9 losing all hydraulic power since each engine has it's own pump in addition to an electrically powered aux. pump. The APU can also be run in flight and can supply electric and pneumatic power. The apparent total loss of control of the Valuejet aircraft hopefully will be discovered, but loss of systems doesn't explain why it would just fall out of the sky. P. Danclovic From kls Thu May 23 10:37:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Snow Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 May 96 10:37:33 Message-ID: On 21 May 1996, Tony Maddern wrote: > The "probe" on the top of the 707 fin is the high frequency radio (HF) > antenna. > I always thought that was a pitot tube! ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie Ex Northwest Arlns ESE, MSP Ramp, Green Concourse FAA PPL, IR, and ADX(in training) B727 Page Curator From kls Sat May 25 14:40:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 25 May 96 14:40:17 Message-ID: In FLKF50A@prodigy.com (Mark Meltzer) writes: > >Does anyone know what the status of Maine Coast Airlines Lockheed 1649 >Connies is? I've heard that they have two near Portland Maine and one >in Fla. where it made an emergency landing en-route to join the others >in Maine. Are they being maintained? Any palns for future flights? >Thanks for any info. Main Coast Airways owns the three L-1649's. Two of them are at the Auburn-Lewiston Airport in Maine and the third is at Sanford, FL. Maine Coast is in the process of refurbishing the two aircraft in Maine with the intention of putting them on the airshow circuit if sufficient backing is obtained. The aircraft will be refurbished in any event, however. The third Starliner at Sanford, FL is awaiting a engine change. The engine change being delayed due to lack of available R3350-TC engines. These engines were used in the L-1649's and also the DC-7 aircraft. If anyone has any leads as to location of any of these engines it would be greatly appreciated if you could forward the information to me. Lou. From kls Sat May 25 14:40:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 25 May 96 14:40:17 Message-ID: In inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) writes: > >In article , FLKF50A@prodigy.com >says... >> >>Does anyone know what the status of Maine Coast Airlines Lockheed >>1649 Connies is? >Perhaps this is not specific enough for you. > But there IS an airworthy Connie on the pad at Altus Municipal (OK) >right now. > Done up rather nicely in MATS livery with polished hull. >The reason for the puzzlement is that I heard that there were only two >examples left flying. Two "Connies" that come to mind are the "MATS Connie" out of Arizona and the "Save-A-Connie" plane out of Kansas City. The latter is done up in basically TWA livery. The Maine "Connies" are not Connies to start with. They look similar, but the are L1649 Starliners. Lou. From kls Sat May 25 14:40:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rmhughes@iinet.net.au (Rick Hughes) Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: iiNet Technologies (Perth, Western Australia) Reply-To: Rick Hughes Date: 25 May 96 14:40:17 Message-ID: Suren Ratwatte wrote: >To the best of my knowledge, even though Airbus claims a common type >rating for the 320/330/340 series, no airline operates it as such. >Lufthansa does it with certain limitations I believe, don't know any >details. >I fly the A300-600 and 310-300. Practically identical flight decks, same >engines and really no difference in handling. >The way most airlines work their scheduling request systems, it's very >unlikely that the situation would arise. Cathay have been operating the A330 and A340 under a common type rating for nearly 12 months now. A good proportion of crew are now "Cross Crew Qualified" and flying both the A330 and A340 in normal "Mixed Fleet Flying" line operations. A pilot can crew an A340 say Zurich to Hong Kong one day, then operate an A330 from Hong Kong to Taipei the next (or any other pattern flown by these types). The only limitation involves flying one type only in any one flying duty period, and the obvious licensing requirements for type recency, line checks etc. Rick Hughes Perth, Western Australia From kls Sat May 25 14:40:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: DC Voltages Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 25 May 96 14:40:18 Message-ID: >rwbaker@airmail.net wrote: >> >> I have a question about the 28VDC used on commercial aircraft. Are >> there any special or unusual characteristics about this current? I >> have a need to take the 28VDC and convert it to 12VDC in an aircraft, >> any ideas? > There are numerous commercial DC-to-DC convertors available (we use the Vicor brand extensively). These things are pretty remarkable in that they will deliver a rock solid output voltage, even at their max rated current draw, while the input voltage varies over a factor of 3 or more. They are also amazingly compact. -- 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 Sat May 25 14:40:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "RamblinRay " Subject: Allegro DC9 Incident Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 May 96 14:40:18 Message-ID: >From the Dallas Morning News, May 15, 1996 Tampico, Mexico - A charter plane from Florida with 47 people aboard made an emergency landing short of the runway Tuesday apparently after running out of fuel, an aviation official said. Four people were slightly injured. All 43 passengers aboard Allegro Airlines Flight 401, bound for the Mexican resort of Cancun, were from the United States, airline officials said. The nationalities of the four crew members were not immediately known. Marisol Lopez, a duty officer at the Tampico airport dispatching office, said the DC-9 jet "apparently ran out of fuel, but this has not been confirmed and is being investigated." "The plane pancaked about 200 meters short of the main runway." she said. The plane had picked up passengers in Miami and Orlando before heading for Cancun, a resort on the tip of the Yucatan peninsula. There was no explanation why the plane landed at Tampico, a port city on the Gulf of Mexico several hundred miles west of Cancun. Allegro service manager Eduardo Alfaro de la Torre told the government news agency Notimex in Cancun that the plane "apparently suffered excessive fuel consumption." Mr. de la Torre was quoted as saying the plane's fiberglass nose was damaged ant that the plane could not continue flying. He said the company was sending another plane to pick up the passengers. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Does anybody know anything more about this? I flew an Allegro B727 three weeks ago on a charter from DFW to Cozumel. The flight was un-eventful. It is apparently a Mexican charter airline with a Mexican crew. A string streched across my globe from Florida to Cancun shows that there are closer places to land (Cuba, Grand Cayman, Jamaica, Merida, Cancun) if your plane is suffering from "excessive fuel consumption." (whatever that implies) How much free booze would it take for you to get on another Allegro airplane in Tampico to continue your holiday? Ray Clawson From kls Sat May 25 14:40:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 25 May 96 14:40:18 Message-ID: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) wrote: >>dwarren5@ix.netcom.com (billie durso) wrote: >>> >>>I am new to this subscription so please bear with me. I was wondering >>>about the recent crash of the Valujet DC-9, and arrived at the >>>following question. This question applies to all of the elder >>>transports 727, 737, DC-9, DC-10... >>> >>Now, it goes without saying that some aircraft have more redundancy than >>others- the L-1011 has 4 hydraulic systems, but the DC-10 (of similar size, >>power, range, etc.) only has 3, for example. > >Unlikely as it may seem, that fourth hyd system on the 1011 has made a >difference. An EAL flight was at 10K feet when the front spool on the >number two engine broke loose and augured forward. I believe that fact is pointed out on the L-1011 page. IF the DC-10 that crashed in Iowa had had a 4th hydraulic system, the result might have been different... but that is pure speculation. I've never heard much about hydraulic failures in a 727... how many systems does it have? Are they particularly well located? Or have I just not *heard* about problems? > >For clarification, hyd transfer pumps transfer power, not fluid. It is >a hyd motor in one system driving a hyd pump in the other, so one is >kept intact in case the other loses its fluid. This also serves to isolate contaminated fluid (say from a failed pump or other component) to one system. As a side-note, you can easily hear these pumps in action on some aircraft. I was aboard a Delta 757 some years ago when a passenger became somewhat alarmed at a "strange" intermittent grinding sound during taxi.. the captain explained that due to a long taxi time, only one engine was running and the transfer pump was powering the hydraulic system normally powered by the other engine. -- 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 Sat May 25 14:40:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 25 May 96 14:40:18 Message-ID: In gsmoff@Mcs.Net (Gary S. Moffitt) writes: >...inputs actuate cables which actuate control tabs, the flight controls >respond opposite to the tab movements. The control tab flies the control >surface. This is one aircraft whose flight control forces do not change >with loss of hydraulic power. There are of couse exceptions. >On the MD80s (I am not ssure about older DC9s) there is hydraulic assist >to the elevator in the nose down direction only to assist in stall >recovery and... That is actually a stick pusher that is triggered by a stall. It is required in the MD-80, not the DC-9. The first flight test MD-80 went into an uncontrollable mode something like a falling leaf maneuver when they were doing deep stalls. They had to deploy the drag chute to recover. The stick pusher slams the stick hard forward in a stall. >...Neither of these hydraulic assists is necessary in normal flight. I'll bet they can't dispatch with the stick pusher inop. RD From kls Sat May 25 14:40:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Date: 25 May 96 14:40:19 Message-ID: -snip- > I have never heard of a DC-9 losing all hydraulic power since > each engine has it's own pump in addition to an electrically powered > aux. pump. The APU can also be run in flight and can supply electric > and pneumatic power. The apparent total loss of control of the > Valuejet aircraft hopefully will be discovered, but loss of systems > doesn't explain why it would just fall out of the sky. > > P. Danclovic That reminds me of another DC-9... the Southern a/c in the `70s that lost power on both engines (and windscreen shattered I believe) due to hail stones. Almost made it onto a road but for a gas station...... -- Niels From kls Sat May 25 14:40:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: raff@ind.uni-stuttgart.de (Oliver Raff) Subject: Re: ValuJet flight 592 (DC-9-32) crash near Miami on Saturday, May 11 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Stuttgart, IND (Germany) Date: 25 May 96 14:40:19 Message-ID: Robert Dorsett (rdd@netcom.com) wrote: [...] > My opinion of general media news coverage has reached a new low. Two days > from now, there will be no coverage, unless the salvage effort produces some > pretty pictures or human drama. It's the same reaction as we had here with the German media after the Birgenair crash off the Domrep coast. Although NO-ONE knows the cause of the accident all reports and articles and so called documentations in ALL media claim that it is unsafe to fly a 'cheap' airline. This might be even true, but it has absolutly nothing to do with this particular crash. While the accident cause of the Birgenair crash is still not offical - I couldn't make out any evidence that is was due to the lack of maintenance - there is another 'documentation' on German television this week which flames about low-fare holidays in general and Birgenair in particular. It is astonishing (or maybe not) how the media coverage of both the Birgenair and the Valuejet crash are exactly the same. (I did see CNN, NBC and ABC news coverage in Germany but did not read any American newspaper.) My opinion of general media news coverage cannot reach a new low - it doesn't go any lower... But at least there're the newsgroup were you can get opinions of people that know better. oli -- Oliver Raff Mittelstrasse 15 oraff@studbox.uni-stuttgart.de 70180 Stuttgart Elekrotechnik - Universitaet Stuttgart ++49-711-604378 From kls Sat May 25 14:40:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Henry Law Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: None Reply-To: hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Date: 25 May 96 14:40:19 Message-ID: We see them quite a lot round here - Aer Lingus, Manx for example. For my part I don't like flying in them - there's almost nowhere you can get a decent view out and down, which is surprising for a high-wing aircraft. The engines get in the way a great deal. -- Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Sat May 25 14:40:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@barder.Princeton.EDU (Pablo Wangermann) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Laboratory for Control and Automation Princeton University Date: 25 May 96 14:40:19 Message-ID: In article , R.S. Solene wrote: >Acavitt@mindspring.com (A.C.) writes: >> The aircraft is a really nice aircraft. Quiet, roomy, good all around >> aircraft. However the maintenance is the biggest problems that it >> has. Many parts are hard to get, expensive, and with 4 engines you >> have 4X as many problems. Sense there are few around and flying, >> parts are not in great demand. Sometimes it takes some time to get >> those parts. Unlike a 737. > >Why didn't the airplane's designer's realize that this aircraft would >present 4X as many maintenance problems? Why didn't the airlines? Why >wasn't the aircraft designed for just two higher thrust power plants? >I remember asking myself these questions when I watched these planes >enter service with PSA in large numbers and I couldn't help but wonder >what its advantage was. The idea was smaller, lower thrust, engine = less cost, less maintenance. (.. and less noise.) Ideally, half the maintenance of an engine twice the thrust. The engines on the Avro RJ (I forget the exact designation, LF507 ??) are _much_ improved over the original ALF502s in the 146s. In particular, the engine operating temps were brought down. Whether the engines are now half the work of, say, the BR750 I don't know, but they are far better than the originals, and I'm sure were a major factor in factor in the purchases by SW and LH. They're also still quieter than any other larger engine. John Wangermann From kls Sat May 25 14:40:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ecla@world.std.com (alain arnaud) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: 25 May 96 14:40:19 Message-ID: Stefano Pagiola (spagiola@worldbank.org) wrote: : tlong@mail.vcnet.com (Tim Long) wrote: : >I seem to remember around 1982 or so, PSA (later merged into USAir) : >started flying the BA146. Lots of bragging about being the quietest : >commercial jet aircraft flying at the time.I know they're still marketed : >as the Avro RJ 100 or some such, but why so few of them? They would only : >be 14 years old or so; you would expect them to still be flying/common. : >What caused them to not become popular? Reliability? Cost of maintaining 4 : >engines? As of a couple of years ago, United/Air Wisconsin was flying them on the Denver - Aspen route. It was not the only jet allowed at Aspen, as you would see on the apron private Lears and other business jets and maybe a 737. From kls Sat May 25 14:40:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 25 May 96 14:40:20 Message-ID: In BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca writes: >The 146 probably did not fit the overall fleet strategy of either the >big carriers, as it was designed for regional route utilization only. >I also remember that American was not happy with maintenance manhours >... A fleet strategy of ten hours per day in the air without interruptions was more than the 146 could handle. The US made Lycoming engines and many other parts just could not cut it. It was already an old design by the time PSA got theirs in 1984, but with all the bugs of a new design because there were so few in service. It was bought by PSA as a 100 seat airplane, the 6-across seating giving it the narrowest seats in the industry. Big Western Americans just did not take to it, so they changed to 5-across, 85 seats, at a big expense and loss of planned revenue, and the widest coach seats in the industry, at 19 inches. >Certainly the 146/Avro RJ is quite popular/common in Europe, where it >is more suited to their shorter sectors and route profiles. And low altitudes. The 146 is limited to 30,000 feet. I was told that is because the skin is too thin to handle more pressurization. >On an historical note, I see parallels here to both the Viscount and >the BAC-111 which were relatively successful around the world but >never really made it in the US. I leave you to draw your own political >conclusions (if any) :) I don't believe politics had any impact on the 146, save for possible British subsidies to build it. RD From kls Sat May 25 14:40:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rparpatt@uniserve.com Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: UNIServe Online Date: 25 May 96 14:40:20 Message-ID: In article , rsolene@sisna.com says... >Why didn't the airplane's designer's realize that this aircraft would >present 4X as many maintenance problems? Why didn't the airlines? Why >wasn't the aircraft designed for just two higher thrust power plants? >I remember asking myself these questions when I watched these planes >enter service with PSA in large numbers and I couldn't help but wonder >what its advantage was. There was problems with the bearings (I believe it was an oiling problem), but that was resolved. These are rather simple engines with a low thrust rating... but yes, 4 engines will be more expensive than two if all things are equal. If they went with two engines (considered in initial design stages) they would have to be alot more powerful for if you had an engine failure you would loose 50% of your power, whereas with 4 engines it is only 25% of your power. Besides, the plane looks great with the 4 engine setup. From kls Sat May 25 14:40:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Loughborough University Date: 25 May 96 14:40:20 Message-ID: The Avro RJ was a relaunch of the 146 program back in 1992. They changed to Avco Lycoming LF507 engines from the LF502-R. These include FADEC control and improve the maintenance and econmics of the four engines considerably, such that Avro's advertising campaign boasted twin engined operating costs for the aircraft. Whether this can be justified is quesionable, but sales have improved recently compared to it's main competitor the Fokker 70/100, such that Fokker went bankrupt in May this year. As to why they chose that engine in the first place. Back in 1978-1983 when the program started, there were no modern engines in the class required. The Tay did not enter service until 1988 and the JT8D was older technology and on the large size (thrust wise). The second major reason was that they got the engine cheap. The LF502 was a new engine needing sales to get it established. Recently Avro has joined forces with ATR (Aerospatiale and Alena) to create a new marketing company called AIR. It is anticipated that this is the first step towards integrating European regional aircraft manufacturing into the Airbus Consortium. AIR are currently looking into a twin engined derivative of the RJ series for a 120 seat model. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, B.Eng (Hons) | Department of Aeronautical & Automotive | | Tel: +44 (0)1509 223454 | Engineering & Transport Studies, | | Fax: +44 (0)1509 223946 | Loughborough University, | | Email: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk | Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sat May 25 14:40:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: J.M.Butt@aeromech.salford.ac.uk (The Time Technician) Subject: Re: What happened to the BAe146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Salford Date: 25 May 96 14:40:20 Message-ID: In article , "R.S. Solene" wrote: >Acavitt@mindspring.com (A.C.) writes: >> The aircraft is a really nice aircraft. Quiet, roomy, good all around >> aircraft. However the maintenance is the biggest problems that it >> has. Many parts are hard to get, expensive, and with 4 engines you >> have 4X as many problems. Sense there are few around and flying, >> parts are not in great demand. Sometimes it takes some time to get >> those parts. Unlike a 737. > >Why didn't the airplane's designer's realize that this aircraft would >present 4X as many maintenance problems? Why didn't the airlines? Why >wasn't the aircraft designed for just two higher thrust power plants? >I remember asking myself these questions when I watched these planes >enter service with PSA in large numbers and I couldn't help but wonder >what its advantage was. s It's not that simple. You can't just put two engines on instead of four. Using only two power plants instead of four would mean more powerful engines and hence, larger ones. This would lead to increased stressing and a larger amplitude of natural vibration of the wing(cantilever)[not to mention the fact that they might not actually fit on]. Also there is the twisting effect of the wing to be considered. Ever seen what happens when a wing twists too far.....? This would all lead to extra support and strengthening of the wing, thus increasing weight, taking up space, and possibly making the design unfeasible. Also, higher powered engines would be noisy, the Textron-Lycomings used are the quietest available - they have to be to meet noise requirements. To be this quiet, they have to be (currently) rated at 32kN I think it is. The thrust requirements of the aircraft(skipping all the detail) mean that there have to be four engines. Larger engines have larger sfc's thus using more fuel, decreasing the range. Vibration could also be a problem, not just for the airframe, but for the passengers' comfort. It must be noted that a proportion of the noise in an aircraft does not come from the engines, but from vibrations through the airframe, which is why Concord is so noisy, you might be travelling twice as fast as sound in cruise, but noise carries through metal a lot faster than through air. As for maintenance, always a compromise has to be reached between maintenance and feasible design. You can't have everything, at least not in this business. The Time Technician E-Mail:AMH269@news.salford.ac.uk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Time is a linear Continuem; Earth's angular velocity reduces - We live in the Future. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From kls Sat May 25 14:40:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: st95356d@echidna.stu.cowan.edu.au (Corey Lewis) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Edith Cowan University Date: 25 May 96 14:40:20 Message-ID: ->tlong@mail.vcnet.com (Tim Long) wrote: ->I seem to remember around 1982 or so, PSA (later merged into USAir) ->started flying the BA146. Lots of bragging about being the quietest ->commercial jet aircraft flying at the time.I know they're still marketed ->as the Avro RJ 100 or some such, but why so few of them? They would only ->be 14 years old or so; you would expect them to still be flying/common. ->What caused them to not become popular? Reliability? Cost of maintaining 4 ->engines? I don't know if the situation in the US is a lot different to that over here in Australia, but over here carriers are still operating with the BAe 146. Some af the carriers are also using the Avro RJ series A/C, mainly the RJ 70s. It could just be an economical reason as to why US carriers are not using the A/C anymore. The main carriers using them here are regional ones, with the domestic airlines Ansett and QANTAS using a couple each. (don't quote me on Ansett and QANTAS). Corey Lewis From kls Sat May 25 14:40:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 25 May 96 14:40:21 Message-ID: rsolene@sisna.com writes: >Why didn't the airplane's designer's realize that this aircraft would >present 4X as many maintenance problems? Why didn't the airlines? Why >wasn't the aircraft designed for just two higher thrust power plants? >I remember asking myself these questions when I watched these planes >enter service with PSA in large numbers and I couldn't help but wonder >what its advantage was. It comes down to the 146's intended mission: to serve small, noise-sensitive airports, leading to two major factors in design: 1. Noise. The four hair driers aout there on the wing are a lot quieter than two engines on a comparable twin -- basically, if you double the power of an engine, you get to quadruple the noise. Also, you need less power in a 4-engine aircraft, since on a twin the thing has to be able to _climb_ on one engine to satisfy safety requirements, whereas a 4-engine aircraft has three engines in reserve for an engine-out situation. 2. Short field performance. The 146 is an STOL design, and works by blowing engine exhaust into the flaps to increase lift at low speeds. four engines, ie two sets of exhaust distributed over each flap, puts a lot less stress on the flap. These features are at the expense of speed and altitude -- the wing has negligible sweepback (required for near-sonic flight), and the engines don't really have enough grunt. But where speed doesn't matter (coz before you're at sufficient altitude to use it, you have to come down again), the 146 is fine. As to the engines -- most of the maintenance problems were because the early engines were basically faulty -- it's not a "number of engines" problem, although having twice as many rather exacerbates the problem. I believe they are now as reliable as anyone else's. I've never been held up by a broken 146 when flying with Ansett NZ, who use them exclusively on main routes. I suspect, and I really don't know for sure, that the smaller engines are as if not more economical to run (maintenance aside) than the larger engines found on a twin. -- 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 Sat May 25 14:40:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Re: Can You ID this Aircraft? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Date: 25 May 96 14:40:21 Message-ID: Sounds like an RAF VC-10 to me also. Approximately half of the RAF's VC-10 fleet are tankers (a la KC-135) and are used to support squadron deployments over to the US on exercise. Steve From kls Sat May 25 14:40:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Chemistry of Oxygen Generators Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Date: 25 May 96 14:40:21 Message-ID: In article , Bob Standaert wrote: >I remember reading a post which mentioned that emergency oxygen in >modern aircraft is generated chemically by "perchlorate candles," and I >was curious about how they worked. The recent ValuJet crash renewed my >curiosity; can anyone please provide more detailed information about how >the O2 generators work? I would be most interested to know the exact >chemical reaction and how it is initiated, but any help, insight, or >history would be appreciated. The oxygen generator "Burns" a mixture of sodium chlorate and iron to produce pure oxygen. sodium chlorate, when heated to 892 deg F, decomposes into ordinary salt and oxygen. The fuel to produce heat for the decomposition of the sodium chlorate is iron. When sufficient heat is applied to start the burning of the iron with a portion of the released oxygen, the burning continues until the chemical process is completed. The generators are either activated electrically or by a percussive "cap" or squib. Assuming the generators on the aircraft, in the hold were of the latter type, the cargo would have to have been shipped with the squibs intact. This alone would be illegal as it would be the equivalent of carrying live ammunition. If the generators are the electrical variety they would need a supply of electricity to activate. The liklyhood that these generators started the fire is somewhat remote BUT the possibility that they were activated by a cargo fire is not so remote. There could have been any number of things to start a fire but heat would activate the generators and make the fire a thousand times worse. This is just the way I look at it. I'll wait until the NTSB finds probable cause then I'll know more, as will we all. -- Brad GIllies Bradg@io.org PPASEL AME (CANADA) A&P HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg From kls Sat May 25 14:40:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.energy,sci.environment Path: bounce-back From: felton@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (phil. Felton) Subject: Re: [Q] what is the energy consumption of several airliners ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Princeton Univ. Date: 25 May 96 14:40:21 Message-ID: In article , C++ Freak wrote: > Of course, figures from Deutsche Airbus show a low environmental impact > of air traffic. > It is not the greatest: automobile traffic and fossil power plants are the > worst, but according to other figures is is currently 2 % of the CO2 output > which still seems low but still of concern because of: > - increasing *rapidly* because air travel is getting cheaper and governments > strongly subsidize airlines and airports > - it affects the upper atmosphere which other polluters don't. And the state of > the upper atmosphere probably affects the climate more than the lower > atmosphere. This is incorrect, the altitudes that are flown by commercial airlines are <40000 feet. The atmosphere up to the tropopause is well mixed and therefore the altitude of emission is irrelevant, SSTs on the other hand fly higher and NOx emissions there are of more concern. However, note that the main source of NOx in the stratosphere is from agricultural fertilizers! To illustrate the degree of mixedness note that Mauna Loa where the classical set of data on CO2 is taken (at an altitude of about 13,000 ft) shows a ~2% annual fluctuation due to the seasonal growth and die back of vegetation. Phil. From kls Sat May 25 14:40:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.energy,sci.environment Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: [Q] what is the energy consumption of several airliners ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 25 May 96 14:40:21 Message-ID: >This is incorrect, the altitudes that are flown by commercial airlines are ><40000 feet. You're a little short there -- I've been on three flights over the last several years that operated at 41,000 ft. The 757 and 767 have a maximum cruise altitude of at least 42,000 ft. The current 737s have a lower maximum cruise altitude, but that's being changed on the upcoming -600/700/800 models, which has given them an advantage over the A319/320/321 in Europe because the higher ceiling means they can fly over most of the traffic in the crowded European airspace. -- 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 Sat May 25 14:40:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: [Q] Required Fuel or trip fuel Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Loughborough University Date: 25 May 96 14:40:22 Message-ID: In article , Upul Abayasingha wrote: >I would like to know how the airlines calculate required fuel for a given >jouney including reseve fuel, for long-haul flights . I know little bit >about the theory using engine SFC. etc... How accurate is this method >and what kind of safty factor airlines use? Is there any books regarding >this matter, and any softwear available ? On most aircraft, the Flight management system will take into account the thrust setting and fuel flow rate to constantly determine range during flight. However to determine the fuel required for the stage they will probably use the following analysis. Basically fuel required is calculated using the Breguet range equation: ESAR=V/C*L/D*ln(W1/W2) ESAR - equivalent still air range (nm) V - Cruise speed (kts) C - Engine SFC (lb/hr/lb) L/D - Aircraft Lift/Drag ratio (-) W1 - Take-off Weight (kg) W2 - Land weight (kg) (i.e. Take-off weight - Fuel burnt) The equation can be rearanged in terms of fuel weight/Take-off weight required: Wf/Wto=1-e^(-ESAR*C/(V*L/D)) Typically Wf/Wto will be around 0.2-0.3 depending on range flown. Standard reserves for a long range aircraft are 5 percent trip fuel, 250nm diversion and a 30min hold at 1,500ft. For short/medium range aircraft, the reserves are 5 percent trip fuel, 200nm diversion and a 30min hold at 1,500ft. These can be taken into account in the Breguet range equation by increasing the ESAR value by around 500nm for short/medium range aircraft and about 750nm for long range aircraft. More detailed values values can be determined by applying the Breguet range equation to the diversion and hold segements as well as the cruise/climb/descent. Check out "Synthesis of Subsonic Aircraft Design" by Egbert Torenbeek, which is in the Cranfied Library. It's not very easy to read, but it's in there. Also check out "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach" by Daniel P. Raymer. It's a easier to read but leans more towards military aircraft. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, B.Eng (Hons) | Department of Aeronautical & Automotive | | Tel: +44 (0)1509 223454 | Engineering & Transport Studies, | | Fax: +44 (0)1509 223946 | Loughborough University, | | Email: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk | Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sat May 25 14:40:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfroseth@aol.com (GFroseth) Subject: Re: Can You ID this Aircraft? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: gfroseth@aol.com (GFroseth) Date: 25 May 96 14:40:22 Message-ID: I saw a t.v. report within the last couple of weeks that spoke of the German Air Force taking over part of a New Mexico air base.....could your sighting of the plane with aft-mounted engines have anything to do with that? From kls Sat May 25 14:40:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: MD-80 vs. Super-80 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 25 May 96 14:40:22 Message-ID: gclst1+@pitt.edu (Grant C Lynde) wrote: >In article , > >Because DC-9s got a bad rap for a while with the American flying public >for accidents that weren't the airframe's fault. What I have always heard was that it was the string of DC-10 accidents that left the public with a bad impression of any plane called "DC- something". Remember that the non-technical flying public will remember the failures of the DC-10 far more readily than the successful history of the DC-3, DC-6, DC-7, DC-8, and yes even the reliable tin can called the DC-9/MD80/MD90. (I still despise DC-9's and all derivatives thereof, but purely for comfort/aesthetic reasons. They are cramped and ugly, but they are NOTHING if not reliable workhorses). Actually, I suspect that after the merger with McDonnell, it just made more sense to tag the new planes "MD" rather than "DC". -- 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 Sat May 25 14:40:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gerhard@onramp.net Subject: Re: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: On-Ramp; Individual Internet Connections; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA Date: 25 May 96 14:40:22 Message-ID: Onat Ahmet wrote: > > In article > bradg@io.org writes: > > > >> > >> Actually the Aural warning for an engine fire and other things are inhibited > >> during the T/O phase of flight. I don't know which airplane you're talking about but I have never seen an airplane that ever inhibits fire warning. If door warning lights aren't inhibited (I can't remember how many aborted takeoffs for door warnings I've seen) then fire warning surely won't be. From kls Sat May 25 14:40:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Mothballed Airliners and other aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 25 May 96 14:40:22 Message-ID: In the past three months, I have been to Davis-Monthan and Mojave. There is a public tour of D-M, but you have to call waaaay ahead of time. I called three weeks ahead and the tour was full for my day. However, the Pima Air Museum is excellent and I discovered that you can prowl along the fence at the privately run scrapyards just down the street. Plenty of S-2s, sitting on their bellies and cut-up B-52s. Mojave is an active airport, so don't count on getting out to the stored airliners. From the road, you can see 747s, L-1011s, etc. If you ignore the signs and drive into the industrial area by Scaled Composites, there is a Convair 990 and a L-1011 pulled right up to the fence. Don't go past the fence without permission! Not only will you get caught, it is dangerous, as there are deadly rattlesnakes out there! ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Sat May 25 14:40:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JW6191A@american.edu (John Witherspoon) Subject: Re: Mothballed Airliners and other aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The American University Date: 25 May 96 14:40:23 Message-ID: In article GKXJ10A@prodigy.com (Michael Miller) writes: >While you're in Tucson, be sure to check out some other interesting >stuff: >1) Arizona Air Guard operates F-16s out of Tucson International (looked >to be 50-55 aircraft); they were running quite active operations one >Wednesday morning when I was waiting to fly out. >2) Pima Air Museum, near D-M AFB, has the best collection I've seen, >other than the Air Force Museum at Dayton. They have an especially good >collection of large transports. Also near Tucson and the Pima Air Museum is a decommissioned nuclear ICBM silo that is open for tours. It is, needless to say, fascinating. I am sorry I can't provide specific details of where it is, but I am sure anyone in the area could direct anyone interested. From news Wed May 15 02:00:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics.simulation, Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.voicenet.com!news2.noc.netcom.net!noc.netcom.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rdd From: Glenn Brown Subject: A live videoconference by ASME on Selection, Design & Performance of Bearings and Seals Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom7.netcom.com Organization: U of MD Instructional Television System Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 01:50:32 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Selection, Design & Performance of Bearings and Seals 11am - 3:45pm EST Wednesday, May 22, 1996 Sponsor: ASME Tribology Division ASME Research Committee on Tribology Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers (STLE) Intended Audience: Engineers engaged in the selection, design or=20 application of bearings and seals. Technical managers wishing to learn=20 about potential lubrication problems and their solutions. For more information Telephone: Call toll free: ASME Information Central at (800)-THE-ASME From kls Mon May 27 13:35:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael Carley Subject: Re: ValuJet flight 592 (DC-9-32) crash near Miami on Saturday, May 11 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Date: 27 May 96 13:35:36 Message-ID: I'm in the US on holidays at the moment and caught an interview with someone from the NTSB (I think) who was saying that she had stopped flying with ValuJet some time before because of their safety record. Apparently, the numbers were printed in the 'Cleveland Plain Dealer' and were enough to put her off VJ and two other airlines which she declined to name. 'USA Today' published some accident rates a few days ago and VJ's were not impressive. On the other hand, I don't trust 'USA Today' on anything else so maybe this is allll rubbish. -- "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 Mon May 27 13:35:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 27 May 96 13:35:36 Message-ID: In article Steve Lacker writes: >rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) wrote: >I believe that fact is pointed out on the L-1011 page. IF the DC-10 that >crashed in Iowa had had a 4th hydraulic system, the result might have been >different... but that is pure speculation. Sure. If Douglas bunched three hydraulic systems in a fragmentation plane, they could have just as easily done four. >I've never heard much about hydraulic failures in a 727... how many systems >does it have? Are they particularly well located? Or have I just not *heard* >about problems? The 727 has a manual reversion mode. If hydraulic power is lost, there are cables leading to control tabs on the ailerons and elevators, thus aerodynamically moving the surfaces. The controls just get rather heavy, but the airplane has a get-on-the-ground capability. I do not believe there has ever been a crash of a 727 due to a failure of the flight controls. The DC-10, on the other hand, has had three, and the 747, 1. The jury's still out on the 737. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Mon May 27 13:35:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 27 May 96 13:35:36 Message-ID: >I do not believe there has ever been a crash of a 727 due to a failure >of the flight controls. The DC-10, on the other hand, has had three, and >the 747, 1. For the 747, are you referring to the JAL 747SR-46 that crashed near Tokyo in 1985 after the rear pressure bulkhead failed? I thought the flight controls were still functional in a limited way, but that too little rudder was left for those controls to be of much use. Did the plane suffer a total hydraulic failure? -- 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 May 27 13:35:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 27 May 96 13:35:36 Message-ID: In article pauldan@mindspring.com writes: >and pneumatic power. The apparent total loss of control of the >Valuejet aircraft hopefully will be discovered, but loss of systems >doesn't explain why it would just fall out of the sky. Not to jump ahead of the investigation, here, but if there was even *slight* loss of control, you will rapidly encounter extremely high rates of descent. If the crew were distracted by a smoke emergency, or could not see out the window (aka the SAA 747 near Mauritania) or had other control system damage, 7,000' doesn't really give you a hell of a lot of altitude to effect a recovery from. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Mon May 27 13:35:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: josjg@euronet.nl (Jos Gielen) Subject: Re: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: EuroNet Internet Date: 27 May 96 13:35:37 Message-ID: gerhard@onramp.net wrote: >> >> >> >> Actually the Aural warning for an engine fire and other things are inhibited >> >> during the T/O phase of flight. >I don't know which airplane you're talking about but I have never seen >an airplane that ever inhibits fire warning. Lots of warning are inhibited on modern transports. E.g. The Fire Warning bell and Master Warning are inhibited on many aircraft during Take-off, from V1 to e.g. 400ft. (you might see an alert displayed on the EAD though, but that doesn't generally attract attention during a take-off) Other warnings (like door warnings) are inhibited during a far greater bracket. The same goes for the landing phase. On the MD-11 for instance ALL alerts are inhibited between V1 and 400ft in take-off. Only LEVEL 3 alerts (the most serious) are displayed on the EAD, but they don't generate audio or visual warning during this bracket. No procedure requires you to do anything during this period, except to fly the aircraft and raise the gear. Take-Off inhibits especially reduce the number of (unjustly) aborted take-off's and therfore enhance safety significantly. Love this system!!! cheers, Jos Gielen On Internet: josg@euronet.nl On Compuserve: 100724,2773 From kls Mon May 27 13:35:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of New South Wales Reply-To: tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au Date: 27 May 96 13:35:37 Message-ID: gerhard@onramp.net wrote: > > Onat Ahmet wrote: > > > > In article > > bradg@io.org writes: > > > > > > >> > > >> Actually the Aural warning for an engine fire and other things are inhibited during the T/O phase of flight. > > I don't know which airplane you're talking about but I have never seen an airplane that ever inhibits fire warning. > > If door warning lights aren't inhibited (I can't remember how many > aborted takeoffs for door warnings I've seen) then fire warning surely won't be. On the B747-400 the fire warning aural is inhibited between V1 and 400 feet. The visual message "Fire Eng 1 (2,3,4)" is still displayed on EICAS regardless of flight phase. Most other warnings, including door warnings, are inhibited between 80 knots and 800 feet. The idea being that it is more important to concentrate on flying the aircraft down low than deal with the fire. For other malfunctions a rejected take-off above 80 knots has been found to be more hazardous than the malfunction due blown tyres, brake fires, runway excursions and other unfortunate happenings. The A320/330/340 are very similar to the -400 but I forget the actual inhibit parameters. I don't know about the MD-11 and B777 and other glass cockpit aircraft. Tony Maddern (ex B747-400 driver) From kls Mon May 27 13:35:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Mothballed Airliners and other aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 27 May 96 13:35:37 Message-ID: In article , David Lednicer wrote: > Mojave is an active airport, so don't count on getting out to >the stored airliners. From the road, you can see 747s, L-1011s, etc. >If you ignore the signs and drive into the industrial area by Scaled >Composites, there is a Convair 990 and a L-1011 pulled right up to the >fence. Don't go past the fence without permission! Not only will you >get caught, it is dangerous, as there are deadly rattlesnakes out there! I was at Mojave late last year and for $10, the fuel truck driver would give you a tour around the storage areas. We flew in in a private plane so I don't know if this is open to drive-up customers. Perhaps most interesting was an ex-America West 747 that had been stripped and up on blocks when a windstorm sent it on a final flight. Only a few feet but enough to take it off the blocks and send it crashing to the ground. Sad really. Also, many of the ex-PSA Bae146's were there and showing signs of fuel corrosion under the wings. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Mon May 27 13:35:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.energy,sci.environment Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: [Q] what is the energy consumption of several airliners ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 27 May 96 13:35:37 Message-ID: In article , felton@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (phil. Felton) wrote: >This is incorrect, the altitudes that are flown by commercial airlines are ><40000 feet. The atmosphere up to the tropopause is well mixed and therefore >the altitude of emission is irrelevant, SSTs on the other hand fly higher and >NOx emissions there are of more concern. However, note that the main source >of NOx in the stratosphere is from agricultural fertilizers! To illustrate the >degree of mixedness note that Mauna Loa where the classical set of data on >CO2 is taken (at an altitude of about 13,000 ft) shows a ~2% annual fluctuation >due to the seasonal growth and die back of vegetation. Two problems: 1) As Karl has already stated, many modern jets do go above 40,000. A week ago, I was on a 767 that cruised at 43,000. 2) I believe at certain times of the year, the tropopasue can be down as low as the low-30's putting a large percentage of jets cruising above the tropopause. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Mon May 27 13:35:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 27 May 96 13:35:38 Message-ID: In Doug Snow writes: > >On 21 May 1996, Tony Maddern wrote: > >> The "probe" on the top of the 707 fin is the high frequency radio >>(HF) antenna. > >I always thought that was a pitot tube! Back when Alaska Airlines was flying their Convair-880 and Northwest was flying B-707's, one of the Alaska dispatchers told me the reason Northwest flew at 37000 or 39000 as opposed to Alaska's 31000 or 33000 was the Boeing products could go higher because of the "God-handle" sticking forward from the top of the vertical stabilizer. Without that extra lift from Someone grabbing that handle, Northwest would be flying at 31000 and 33000 also. Made sense then. Lou. From kls Mon May 27 13:35:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of New South Wales Reply-To: tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au Date: 27 May 96 13:35:38 Message-ID: Doug Snow wrote: > > I always thought that ( The "probe" on the top of the 707 fin) was a pitot tube! I blew the cobwebs of my 707 Operations Manual and the probe is the HF antenna which is shared by the 2 HF systems via an antenna coupler which tuned the antenna length to the frequency on the selected radio. If both radios are keyed nearly simultaneously it is possible to jam the coupler and lose both radios. There is a can shaped pitot lower down on the fin which is the sensor for the rudder Q-feel. Tony Maddern ex-Captain & TRE, IRE, B707, L1011, B747-200/300/400 From kls Mon May 27 13:35:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Chilukuri) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Date: 27 May 96 13:35:38 Message-ID: Early aircraft had a taut wire stretching from the vertical tail to the cockpit area of the fuselage -- was this an antenna too? Krish From kls Mon May 27 13:35:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: What happened to the BAe146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Date: 27 May 96 13:35:38 Message-ID: I flew in a BAe 146 about 16 months ago, on a United Express flight. I though it ws very comfortable, but many of my fellow passengers didn't. Of course, I'm 5'3" and mose of them were just a bit taller, which may have explained the difference. I thought it was a very nice plane. -- 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 May 27 13:35:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rcarpen@dgsys.com (Robert J. Carpenter) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Digital Gateway Systems Date: 27 May 96 13:35:38 Message-ID: Tim Long (tlong@mail.vcnet.com) wrote: > I seem to remember around 1982 or so, PSA (later merged into USAir) > started flying the BA146. Lots of bragging about being the quietest > commercial jet aircraft flying at the time.I know they're still marketed > as the Avro RJ 100 or some such, but why so few of them? They would only > be 14 years old or so; you would expect them to still be flying/common. > What caused them to not become popular? Reliability? Cost of maintaining 4 > engines? I've heard that the engines had unusually high maintainance costs, at least in the early days (and there are 4 of them). In the US, few routes require the short field performance of the 146, and can get along just fine with turboprop Dash-8, ATR, etc., aircraft, which give not-much-longer block times on short routes. There aren't many airports in developed countries that have substantial passenger traffic and very short runways. A LIAT competitor in the Caribbean recently started-up using 146s, but I notice that they have reduced frequencies because the planes are too large and load factors too low. LIAT has used Islanders on some routes, where a Twin Otter is a "jumbo". Similarly, you don't see many Dash-7s since their short-field performance isn't an issue most places, while the four engines must be maintained. It's interesting to see a Dash-7 land at DCA. They seem to regally float in and stop a few plane lengths after touching down. Then the longish taxi to the USAir terminal. Regards Bob Carpenter w3otc@amsat.org From kls Mon May 27 13:35:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 27 May 96 13:35:38 Message-ID: In D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) writes: >... four engines considerably, such that Avro's advertising campaign >boasted twin engined operating costs for the aircraft. Whether this can >be justified is quesionable,... It has some twin operating costs, and some twin operating limitations. Each engine has a single accessory pad, so each has a generator or a hydraulic pump, but not both. With four engines you still get just two generators and two hyd pumps. >As to why they chose that engine in the first place. Back in 1978-1983 >when>the program started, there were no modern engines in the class >required... The primary requirement for design of an airplane is availability of a suitable powerplant. The second is where to stow the landing gear. The rest of the plane is wrapped around those two decisions. >... The second major reason was that they got the engine cheap. The >LF502 was a new engine needing sales to get it established. Yeah, it was originally a tank engine, probably developed with US militarly funds. It was later upgraded to a military helicopter engine, and then the Canadair Challenger. Canadair and Lycoming sued each other for a couple of billion dollars over that one, and the Canadair ended up with a GE engine. I had not thought of this before, but maybe the ALF-502 was so unreliable because it wasn't originally designed for competitive commercial service. I think the name was changed from BAe-146 to RJ because they could not shake the motto: Bring Another engine. RD From kls Mon May 27 13:35:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Date: 27 May 96 13:35:39 Message-ID: R.S. Solene (rsolene@sisna.com) wrote: : Acavitt@mindspring.com (A.C.) writes: : Why didn't the airplane's designer's realize that this aircraft would : present 4X as many maintenance problems? Why didn't the airlines? Why : wasn't the aircraft designed for just two higher thrust power plants? : I remember asking myself these questions when I watched these planes : enter service with PSA in large numbers and I couldn't help but wonder : what its advantage was. One advantage was that, if there was a bad engine on a remote, small airfield, the plane could be flown out on three engones, empty. I don't know if this ever happened, but it was claimed in a Dutch language magazine. Another advantage is the STOL characteristics, wich are related to the engine positioning. A Fokker 100 has a much more complex wing. (Does anybody know if the Fikker 100 can now get into London City?) And low noise, of course. -- Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE* FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus- From kls Mon May 27 13:35:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ISFSI Date: 27 May 96 13:35:39 Message-ID: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) wrote: > The Maine "Connies" are not Connies to start with. They look >similar, but the are L1649 Starliners. > That's a rather strange statement: The L1649 is a lengthened Super Connie fuselage with a new wing, and is most assuredly a Constellation. The name "Starliner" is nothing but a marketing ploy; the aircraft themselves are Constellations under a different name. TWA named the L1649 "Jetstream," which caused quite a controversy: Lockheed had planned for the aircraft to be a turboprop, but could not come up with a satisfactory engine and propeller combination in time to meet TWA's delivery schedule. The other airlines claimed that the name "Jetsteam" made it appear that the aircraft was jet-powered; Lockheed stayed out of the mess by using the appelation "Starliner." Howard Hughes' engineering aide, Bob Runnel, once said, "Economically, the last Constellation was a flop" in talking about the Starliner. (Solberg, _Conquest of the Skies_, page 356.) From kls Mon May 27 13:35:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) Subject: So, how safe are oxygen generators in their INTENDED location? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: 27 May 96 13:35:39 Message-ID: It's been widely reported that the (proximal!) cause of the ValuJet crash is suspected of being a cargo hold fire caused by oxygen generators carried as cargo. The newspaper stories say emergency oxygen is generated by a chemical system, and the generators get as hot as 500 degrees Fahrenheit in use. Like most laypeople, I'd never heard of the things before. (I'd assumed there was a tank of oxygen onboard somewhere). Naturally, this leads me to wonder: if it is dangerous to carry them as cargo, just how safe is it to have them "stored" in the overhead compartments? The newspaper stories say that they're well insulated, of course. How are the oxygen generators, _and their insulation_ tested for safety and integrity? -- Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@world.std.com From kls Mon May 27 13:35:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: airbearzln@aol.com (AirBearZln) Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: airbearzln@aol.com (AirBearZln) Date: 27 May 96 13:35:39 Message-ID: Of all the currently proposed "pure jet" airframes available the 737 is probably the best suited to the H2O role. HOWEVER as with any aviation enterprise, cost, both original and operation, is the real crux. Current practice limits capacity to about 3000 gals, many 3000 gal tankers are used on 2800 gal, or even 2400 gal contracts. I cant imagine that acquisition cost of a 373 would ever be so low as to compete with essentially free C-130's. How much water do you propose to carry? Also, will the 737 accomodate the long, tall, skinny tank required to get the proper drop pattern? Lotsa work done on this by USFS at San Dimas, CA and MSO. I'd be interested in consulting on the Project! 30 yrs experience in USFS Aviation., . From kls Mon May 27 13:35:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Technische Universitdt Berlin Date: 27 May 96 13:35:39 Message-ID: The flow of engines pod-mounted beneath a wing counteract the circulation of the wing, thus reducing lift, whereas engines mounted above the wing would enhance lift. The german VFW614 used the latter concept to demonstrate lift coefficients of 4,0 and above. As the VFW614 was designed for service from unpaved surfaces by third-world operators, FOD-avoidance was another driving factor for the configuration. The major shortcomings of the concept can be found in wing-pylon-pod interference. Pod and pylon shapes would have to be 3D-optimzed (i.e. non-symmetrical) with respect to singular operating conditions whenever sweep is to be applied to the wing in order to minimize degrading interferences with the latter's pressure distribution. The build-up of complex shock patterns seems to restrict entry into the transonic filght regime anyway. Another factor is cabin noise, as stated before, and certification criteria regarding turbine disc fragmentation zones. Passengers could no longer be shielded by the wing structure. Another factor contributing to the demise of the VFW614 was a deficiency in the internal aerodynamics of the RR-Turbomeca M45 engine, which led to intermittent bursts fo the jet efflux pounding the horizontal stabilizer, accompanied by some respective discomfort felt in the cockpit. Besides, there was another remarkable (paper-)concept with engines pod-mounted above the wings. In the late seventies Lockhhed proposed a transport for hauling caterpillars and similarly oversized equipment with the crago sitting IN THE OPEN flat-bed style. Burkhard Domke TU Berlin, ILR F2 Marchstrasse 14, D-10777 Berlin, Germany Phone +49 30 314 24460 FAX +49 30 314 22955 e-mail domk1031@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de From kls Mon May 27 13:35:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: psballent@aol.com (PSBallent) Subject: Re: Hush Kits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: psballent@aol.com (PSBallent) Date: 27 May 96 13:35:40 Message-ID: The main reason for using hush kits is to meet FAA part III standards for noise. Many of the older engines, such as the JT-3D need hush kits to meet FAA noise standards. The only other option for meeting noise standards is to buy new engines. Hush kits can provide better fuel consumption, but only by a few percent. Cost wise, for a 707, hush kits run 1-2 million an engine. A hush kit is basically a new cowling that mixes cool bypass air into the exhaust to reduce thermal shock, which reduces noise. Some hush kits also move the Inlet Guide Vain (IGV) forward to reduce noise from the compressor and fan. Hope this helps, Pete Ballentine - pballent@ocdis01.tinker.af.mil From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: So, how safe are oxygen generators in their INTENDED location? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:10 Message-ID: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes: >It's been widely reported that the (proximal!) cause of the ValuJet crash >is suspected of being a cargo hold fire caused by oxygen generators >carried as cargo. [] >Naturally, this leads me to wonder: if it is dangerous to carry them as >cargo, just how safe is it to have them "stored" in the overhead >compartments? It's pretty straightforward to consider. You have this juice-can above the seat. It's bolted into a [say] ceramic-lined clamp, with some free-air space. When 'lit' the O2 goes down to the masks. Designing such is not rocket science -- look at your catalytic converter, or your oven at home. Contrast that to a cardboard box of them touching each other. Assume one goes off, getting rather hot. THAT ignites the box at 451F and IT burns with the help of the O2, igniting OTHER generators and the rest of the cargo. O2-fed fires burn very well. -- 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 Sat Jun 1 16:27:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gsmoff@Mcs.Net (Gary S. Moffitt) Subject: Re: So, how safe are oxygen generators in their INTENDED location? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MCSNet Internet Services Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:11 Message-ID: In article , dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) wrote: The newspaper stories say emergency oxygen is generated > by a chemical system, and the generators get as hot as 500 degrees Fahrenheit > in use. > > Naturally, this leads me to wonder: if it is dangerous to carry them as > cargo, just how safe is it to have them "stored" in the overhead > compartments? A good point. I am an airline mechanic and have never been able to recieve a satisfactory for that question although I have sought an answer from our maintenence training department for several years. I can say this, accidental mask deployments and subsequent activation of the oxygen generators, while rare, are not especially uncommon. And none of these accidental deployments has ever led to any fires on our aircraft. Additionally, it would be difficult for a cannister to activate accidentally since it is the pull on the lanyard attatched to the mask that fires them, so the chance of a cannister going off without first dropping the oxygen masks is pretty small. Lack of incidence on an installed cannister would indicate that they are safe when installed, especially when the number per aircraft and number of hours flown is considered. I have been tempted to discharge one myself to see how hot it actually got and how hot it made the surrounding area, unfortunately I think my boss would not approve of the experiment. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:11 Message-ID: Robert J. Carpenter wrote: >Tim Long (tlong@mail.vcnet.com) wrote: >> I seem to remember around 1982 or so, PSA (later merged into USAir) >> started flying the BA146. >In the US, few routes >require the short field performance of the 146..... There arent many >airports in developed countries that have substantial passenger traffic >and very short runways > Similarly, you don't see many Dash-7s since their short-field >performance isn't an issue most places, while the four engines must be >maintained. It's interesting to see a Dash-7 land at DCA. They seem to >regally float in and stop a few plane lengths after touching down. Then >the longish taxi to the USAir terminal. STOL seems to have petered out. I always thought that the DASH-7 was an interesting looking airplane (never have had a ride) but doesnt seem to have sold in the way that ATRs and DASH-8 have. What was the rationale? I've heard bits about being able to use taxi-ways at major airports, but have never seen such operations. Given the short take of run of a non-STOL commuter plane, like a BaE Jetstream 31, a DASH-7 must be amazing. It seems that most of the major airports have installed runway extensions and the like to handle modern jets. Presumeably, 737-500s and F100s dont have the take-off run of a DC-8-61 either. Does anybody know the reason why STOL died? From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Niccolai Murphy Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Aerostructures Inc Reply-To: niccom@aerostructures.com Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:11 Message-ID: RD Rick wrote: >The primary requirement for design of an airplane is availability of a >suitable powerplant. The second is where to stow the landing gear. >The rest of the plane is wrapped around those two decisions. Perhaps this was the problem. Generally one would start with a requirement (range, capacity, etc), and this was done with the 146. From what I recall - it would have been better to be a twin, but they were forced to a four engine configuration because the engines available were either too large or too small. The 146 wasn't enough of a driver to push for an engine of the optimum size. I might be wrong but this is what us stress weenies were told back then. Nicco From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:12 Message-ID: In article D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) writes: >As to why they chose that engine in the first place. Back in 1978-1983 when >the program started, there were no modern engines in the class required. The >Tay did not enter service until 1988 and the JT8D was older technology and on >the large size (thrust wise). The second major reason was that they got the >engine cheap. The LF502 was a new engine needing sales to get it established. The 146 story goes back a lot further than that. The original De Havilland DH146 was a military transport project, kind of a 'jet Hercules' in the early 1960s. As the Hawker Siddeley HS146, it was cancelled along with the TSR2 and others by the UK government in 1965(?). When BAe decided to build a civil version some ten years later, they left the design pretty much the way it was (4-engine high-wing etc.) to keep development costs down. This may explain some of the debatable features of the configuration which was 'inherited' rather than chosen. I do not recall what the original engines were to be, but obviously not the Avcos. Perhaps derated Speys or a Viper development ? regards Brian Maddison From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rcarpen@dgsys.com (Robert J. Carpenter) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Digital Gateway Systems Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:12 Message-ID: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca wrote: > On an historical note, I see parallels here to both the Viscount and > the BAC-111 which were relatively successful around the world but > never really made it in the US. I leave you to draw your own political > conclusions (if any) :) Capital Airlines had a large fleet of Viscounts when they were taken over by United. Braniff also had quite a few Viscounts. Alleghany (now US Air) had the World's largest fleet of BAC 1-11s for many years. Bob Carpenter From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckc@pacbell.net (Khee Chan) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:12 Message-ID: In article , ecla@world.std.com (alain arnaud) wrote: > As of a couple of years ago, United/Air Wisconsin was flying them > on the Denver - Aspen route. >From the schedules on SABRE and the UA hardcopy timetable, UE/AW still flies the 146 on flights between DEN & ASE and vice versa (12 flights a day) and also DEN & SBA, DEN & ICT and DEN-MKE-ATW (some 14 flights a day if my counting is correct). From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ed Graf Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet Online Services Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:12 Message-ID: Stefano Pagiola wrote: > As for PSA: > PSA started operating BAe 146s in 1984, not 1982. They operated 24 -200s > as well as several -100s on short-term lease. One crashed after a > disgruntled employee killed the pilots. USAir took them over when they > bought PSA, but several were sold. USAir eventually parked the remaining > 18 aircraft in the desert ... Stefano, Since we are posting "for the record", the PSA 146 that "crashed after a disgruntled employee killed the pilots" was a USAir employee and had absolutely no relationship with PSA. He was a five-time loser and a real tribute to the "then" management skills at USAir. -- Ed Graf edgraf@village.ios.com 818.449.9746 From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: piersdorff.michael@ic.gc.ca (michael piersdorff) Subject: Re: What happened to the BAe146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Communications Research Centre Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:12 Message-ID: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote: >I flew in a BAe 146 about 16 months ago, on a United Express flight. >I though it ws very comfortable, but many of my fellow passengers >didn't. Of course, I'm 5'3" and mose of them were just a bit taller, >which may have explained the difference. >I thought it was a very nice plane. I flew Air Nova BAe146s a few times from Montreal to Halifax and return. It is the only airliner I have ever been on for which the cabin crew had to apologize twice during the trip: On take-off, the flight attendant apologized for the noise made when the flaps retracted (and in advance, for the noise they would make when they were once again extended for landing). And as we descended for landing, FA once again apologized as the pressurisation system filled the cabin with fog. Aside from those two difficulties, I found the seats cramped for leg-room, with metal springs (they hold closed the little pouch on the back of the seat in front of you that contains the in-flight magazine, barf-bag, etc.) that dug into my knees, and tray table supports too narrow to fit even one leg under comfortably. And the seat cushion felt like a sack of boulders. Needless to say, I was not impressed with the airplane, although the seat problems are mor attibutable to the airline than the airplane. From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: VRCZ91A@prodigy.com (Frank Hargett) Subject: Re: What happened to the BAe146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:12 Message-ID: Well, don't know bout you all, but we have plenty of BAe-146's flying out of Denver for Air Wisconson{a United Express carrier}. They fly the Aspen routes. Oh yeah, did anyone mention that their Allison fanned engines really sucked when they first came out.That vibration you felt wasnt the air over the wings , but rather the engine shedding it's self. From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: B-777 cockpit Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:13 Message-ID: I recently was travelling Asia on business, and on one leg I was booked for my first B-777 ride. I sent my B-card up to the cockpit and asked to be in the jumpseat for takeoff... I found the displays to be very crisp, and the procedures associated with gate departure to be well integrated with the Flight Management Computer. I looked carefully, but I don't think I saw a single electro-mechanical indicator...everything was lights, LCD or AMLCD flat panel. Two things that I found to be intriguing: 1- The pedastel mounted display used a "Windows" style GUI with a mouselike cursor (touch sensitive mouse pad" to select options, tick off checklists, etc. 2- There was a flight engineer station, immediately behind the co-pilot's seat. The station consisted of a large flat panel display and a trackball. The flight engineer, monitored systems and called up maintenance logs, and maintenance bulletins on this display. Engine start was a cinch: both engines were set to "start" at the same time, and the EICAS immediately switched to engine parameters display. The left engine spooled and started normally, but the right engine did not light off. (Hot start??) I mentioned this to the captain, who did not seem to notice...he just left everything alone and soon enough (another 15 seconds or so), the right engine lit off properly. (The captain/copilot ignored the whole thing!...let the computer (FADEC?) deal with it...) As we left the gate, the EFIS showed a "GPS" indicator which confirmed that the GPS was receiving valid signals for navigation. I mention this as the B-777 is the first production airliner to incorporate GPS as part of the Avionics design...also of course because my company provides the GPS to Honeywell...who provide it to Boeing. We eventually made our way to the runway and began the takeoff roll. Very smooth and powerful takeoff...made our way to 31000 in a single leap, and then were soon cleared to FL 350...I made my goodbyes and headed for my seat. I have been in the Airbus 320 during takeoff (in fact for whole flights), It seemed to me that the B-777 was just a little "smoother" in operation than the -320, but that might be my own impression as opposed to reality. Alan Browne Canadian Marconi Co. From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Am West "Arizona Diamondbacks" 757? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:13 Message-ID: Maybe this is "old" news but I just saw an America West 757 in "Arizona Diamondbacks" colors at PHX. Is this new or has it been around a while? How many "special" 757's does HP have now? I know there is the Phoenix Suns, Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio flags, any others I've missed? Steve From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control/ hydraulic systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:13 Message-ID: In rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >In article Steve Lacker writes: >>rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) wrote: >Sure. If Douglas bunched three hydraulic systems in a fragmentation >plane, they could have just as easily done four. There are some places all four systems have to go, or else it makes no sense to have four. That makes for some vulnerable places in any plane. The JAL 747 lost all four when the tail blew out. The L-1011 lost three and the fourth was damaged on two occasions, where all four systems crossed the aft pressure bulkhead. >I do not believe there has ever been a crash of a 727 due to a failure >of the flight controls. The DC-10, on the other hand, has had three, >and the 747, 1. The jury's still out on the 737. There was the Turkish Airways DC-10 out of Paris, and the UAL at Sioux City. What was the third crash? RD From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control/ hydraulic systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:13 Message-ID: >There are some places all four systems have to go, or else it makes no >sense to have four. That makes for some vulnerable places in any >plane. The JAL 747 lost all four when the tail blew out. >The L-1011 lost three and the fourth was damaged on two occasions, >where all four systems crossed the aft pressure bulkhead. My impression had been that no more than 3 of the 4 are present in any one portion of the aircraft. For example, one system in the L-1011 is located only in the aft section and does not venture forward to the wings, while another is present only in and ahead of the wings, never venturing back to the tail. Obviosuly, this appears to conflict with the 747 and L-1011 incidents you cite. Can anyone who works on these planes clarify this matter? >>I do not believe there has ever been a crash of a 727 due to a failure >>of the flight controls. The DC-10, on the other hand, has had three >There was the Turkish Airways DC-10 out of Paris, and the UAL at Sioux >City. What was the third crash? I believe he's referring to AA 191 (Chicago; 1979), though I would disagree with that reference. The engine separation damaged one of the hydraulic systems, which in turn caused the leading edge slats on the left wing, which unlike other designs lacked any sort of mechnical lock, to retract. The non-redundant stall warning and slat disagree- ment systems were powered only by the engine which separated from the airframe, and thus the pilots were not aware of the asymmetric lift, nor of the left-wing stall, once they reduced airspeed in compliance with AA operational procedures. With these warning systems intact, simulations showed that the plane was still flyable -- there was no total hydraulic failure and the flight controls were largely intact. He may instead be referring to AA 96 (Windsor, Ontario; 1972) which did suffer a substantial, though not total, failure of flight controls. However, there was no crash and there were no fatalities. -- 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 Sat Jun 1 16:27:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Brad Gillies" Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:13 Message-ID: >The description for the L-1011 also shows that the hydraulic systems are >generally "re-configurable" to a certain extent. For example, if one engine >shuts down, the hydraulic system it powers can be powered by another engine >via a transfer pump. Some aircraft provide an electrical pump as a backup, >and usually the APU can provide hydraulic power, or even a ram-air driven >turbine can power a system in the event that none of the engines nor the >APU are functioning and the plane is gliding. I Have yet to see any commercial transport aircraft from the DC-9 up to the 747 that has a Hydraulic pump on the APU. The APU only supplies Electrical power and Pneumatics. The hydraulic power would come from an electric pump somewhere else on the aircraft. From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:14 Message-ID: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>I do not believe there has ever been a crash of a 727 due to a failure >>of the flight controls. The DC-10, on the other hand, has had three, and >>the 747, 1. > >For the 747, are you referring to the JAL 747SR-46 that crashed near >Tokyo in 1985 after the rear pressure bulkhead failed? I thought the >flight controls were still functional in a limited way, but that too >little rudder was left for those controls to be of much use. Did the >plane suffer a total hydraulic failure? Yep. The rear pressure bulkhead gave away after an improper Boeing repair. The failure mode caused about half the vertical stabilizer to shatter. But at the same time, they lost all four hydraulic systems as well. The captain tried to use asymmetric thrust to keep the right side up, but eventually a mountain got in the way. Haynes et al used a similar strategy on UAL 232 near Sioux City, with somewhat better results. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:14 Message-ID: Robert Dorsett wrote on Mon May 27 21:42:43 1996:- > The 727 has a manual reversion mode. If hydraulic power is lost, there > are cables leading to control tabs on the ailerons and elevators, thus > aerodynamically moving the surfaces. The controls just get rather heavy, > but the airplane has a get-on-the-ground capability. I thought the 737 had a similar manual reversion. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sat Jun 1 16:27:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: scouba@ix.netcom.com (gary quart) Subject: Who's in Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:14 Message-ID: A question on flight and control. I work right under the path of the approach to LAX, ya know where you turn left at Santa Monica, heading of 070 maintain 2500, etc, etc. Right over the station where I work you guys get a turn to 160 and then a turn to 230 to intercept 24 right, and then the your 9 miles from Roman advisory. At this stage of the approach are YOU flying or are you setting the heading bug and having the jet fly itself? Many evenings I am in the parking lot watching approaches to LAX, and the simulataneous landing approaches, people think out loud, OH MY GOD, THEY'RE FLYING INTO EACH OTHER. Being a low time pilot (170+ hrs) and avid LARGE JET LOVER, I always wonder who is doing the flying. Thanks for any answer. GQ de LA From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.energy,sci.environment Path: bounce-back From: felton@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (phil. Felton) Subject: Re: [Q] what is the energy consumption of several airliners ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Princeton Univ. Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:35 Message-ID: In article , lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) wrote: > In article , > felton@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (phil. Felton) wrote: > > >This is incorrect, the altitudes that are flown by commercial airlines are > ><40000 feet. The atmosphere up to the tropopause is well mixed and therefore > >the altitude of emission is irrelevant, SSTs on the other hand fly higher and > >NOx emissions there are of more concern. (deleted) > Two problems: 1) As Karl has already stated, many modern jets do go above > 40,000. A week ago, I was on a 767 that cruised at 43,000. 2) I believe at > certain times of the year, the tropopasue can be down as low as the > low-30's putting a large percentage of jets cruising above the tropopause. Firstly, I won't argue over an extra 3,000 feet! Secondly, the tropopause does get down to about 30,000 feet over the poles in winter but I would suggest that this is a far cry from "a large percentage of jets...... above the T." Note that total emission by jet aircraft of NOx is 0.25 TgN/yr, which has a lifetime in the troposphere of about 1-7 days (removed rapidly as acid rain). Compare this with 8 TgN/yr produced by lightning, 8 TgN/yr from soil and 20 TgN/yr from fossil fuel combustion. Most of the NOx in the stratosphere comes from the reaction of oxygen atoms with N2O (very stable in the tropo- sphere, lifetime >100yrs). The sources of N2O are mainly biological and lead to 10 TgN/yr being destroyed in the stratosphere resulting in 1 TgN/yr of NOx being formed in the stratosphere, which can decrease the ozone concentration. >From these figures it can be seen that direct production of NOx above the tropopause by jet aircraft is not significant at present. Phil. From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin SMith <100246.600@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: [Q] what is the energy consumption of several airliners ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:36 Message-ID: Modern jets may go above 40 000, but except for some airliners (767, 747sp, concord) this is still fairly rare. Even for these aircraft (except concord) the vast majority of cruising would be done below 40 000. e.g. 747-400 has an altitude limit of 45 100. Only once in the last year of flying them have I gone above 40 000 (and then only for about 2 hours at the end of a particularly long sector). The troposhere is above 40 000 in the latitudes where most humans live. At high latitudes the troposhere gets lower. Polar flights are almost always done abopve the troposhere (and therefore have fewer weather problems). But very few of all the flights done in the world are over polar regions. >From MS Encarta Troposphere, lowest layer of the earth's atmosphere and the site of all weather processes. The troposphere extends up to an altitude of about 11 km (about 7 mi) above the polar zones and to about 16 km (about 10 mi) above the equatorial regions. The tropopause forms the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere. " Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation. Thanks Martin Smith From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cra@servtech.com (Curtis R. Anderson) Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Gleepy's Henhouse Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:36 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) decided to enlighten us with: >>Does anyone know if Northwest Airlines operates any 747SP's ? >Northwest does not have any 747SPs. To my knowedlge, they never have >and never operated any on lease or otherwise borrowed. There were no >747SP-51s built. (The 51 would indicate it was built for Northwest.) Funny... I flew in a NW 747SP in early '84 from Seoul to Seattle. It's possible that they acquired the plane from Pan Am and kept it in use along the Far East corridor for a short while. Of course, NW does not operate such a bird these days. -- Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", SP 2.5?, KoX URLs: http://www.servtech.com/public/cra/ mailto:cra@servtech.com ftp://ftp.servtech.com/pub/users/cra/ Opinions mine (not Service Tech's!) unless marked otherwise!!! From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: harrisc@aol.com (HARRISC) Subject: real flight simulators Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: harrisc@aol.com (HARRISC) Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:36 Message-ID: does anyone know where i can get info on old flight simulators for a 707 or dc8 or even older airliners if possible. i am interested in buying one. will pay top$$$$ thanks harrisc@aol.com From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:36 Message-ID: In jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) writes: >l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) wrote: > > > The Maine "Connies" are not Connies to start with. They look >>similar, but the are L1649 Starliners. > >That's a rather strange statement: The L1649 is a lengthened Super >Connie fuselage with a new wing, and is most assuredly a >Constellation. The name "Starliner" is nothing but a marketing ploy; >the aircraft themselves are Constellations under a different name. I didn't mean to infer there was a basic difference between Connies and Starliners - it was just that the L1649's were never known as Connies. As far as their being a "flop", Alaska Airlines flew them into the middle '60's and didn't consider them to be "flops". The two at Auburn-Lewiston Airport were workhorses and hauled everything from passengers in Alaska to cargo destined for Southeast Asia to fuel oil for the Radar sites in Alaska. And they did this into and out of some of the worst airports in Alaska. If it seems like I am defending the 1649's, that's because I am. Lou. From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: roygbvgw@aol.com (RoyGbvgw) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: roygbvgw@aol.com (RoyGbvgw) Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:37 Message-ID: I have heard rumor that the TWA-painted Connie out of Kansas City is available for hire. My company is interested in flying as passengers on one of our usually boring interstate trips. Can anyone tell me an address or phone number for the Save-a-Connie foundation? Thanks, RoyGbvgw From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety,sci.engr,comp.software-eng,comp.software.testing Path: bounce-back From: arch6@inlink.com (Archibald McKinlay) Subject: N-version software compared to others Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McKinlay & Associates Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:37 Message-ID: The following article is re-posted for those who attended the University of Southern California Software Safety Engineering course in May: Safe Software: N-Version vs. Single Version Arguments for, and against, N-version (N-Ver) over single version (SV) are many faceted but use few, and overstressed, arguments. The most stated reason FOR is that N-Ver overcomes a certain error set, including specification writing and interpretation or hardware or compiler error(s) and also the development and integration error(s) common to but unknown to the developer(s). With no fully documented studies, N-Ver proponents claim that since this method eliminates these errors they also feel justified to not do certain error extraction methods common to single version software development and test or they use alternatives such as testing the versions against each other (none of which has been proved an "oracle"). Likewise, N-Ver opponents offer experiment results (Knight/UVa, Leveson/UCI), vice full industry studies but at least some public documentation, showing much less than claimed reliability and fault avoidance results. The residual risk which is left untouched by N-Ver. Despite the large, additional, costs there is documented to be less than a 30 percent increase in reliability (Eckerdt/NASA), still unproved by more than a couple experiments, for a cost equal to (the number of versions) * 1.2, which is greater than one due to the additional management and coordination. Argument: Certain Error Sets or Errors can be Eliminated from N-Ver and Single-Ver differently, one better than another. Lesson Learned: N-Ver does deal with a subset of errors not commonly dealt with in Single-Ver. This error subset is produced at the software requirement specification writing and transition, the software design phase, the software implementation and the software test phase. An error subset in system test is also dealt with using N-Ver. N-ver helps find discrepancies in the documentation and the assumptions to the above phases as a function of testing the same functions, the same way, on the separate versions. NOTE: if the test engineer(s) test the same functions but in a different part of the environment, that is not using the same data set, there is as much chance of finding the discrepancy in N-ver as there is in Single-Ver. Likewise, if testing is the only way to discover the discrepancy errors then it follows that the system must be thoroughly tested to find these errors. This exhaustive testing becomes impossible in short order. Exhaustive testing in Single-Ver, if possible, would not find the same discrepancies because the interpretation or assumption is singular. These specification or interpretive errors would then only be found via reviews and testing with or by the user. So, with exhaustive testing impossible for N-Ver and Single-Ver alike in most complex systems, and alternatives of reviews and testing available and germane to sw development, there evolves less economic reason to invest in one over another. Remember the caveat that each N-ver version must be tested using the same test data sets to uncover exercise the one strength of N-Ver over Single-Ver. This requires a good deal of discrete oversight and coordination. Argument: N-Ver explicitly finds differences betwixt implementations of similar software requirement specifications Caveat: When each version within the N-Versions are tested using the same data set these discrepancies can be found. If each N-Version is not tested , as it is sometimes called, then the utility of this advantage is completely wasted. Argument: N-Ver increases reliability of software subsystem There are multiple mathematical exercises demonstrating that it logically can be assumed that N-Verison programming will result in more reliable solutions. However, these are theoretical approaches. The comparison to realworld finds that a reasonable expectation for N-ver within a well defined and process structurally similar development and test model will result in approximately 1.3-1.5x increase in software reliability. Caveat: To achieve these numbers the well defined and structural model which the N-ver must be developed under is one similar to single version. Modifying this model will modify the increase in reliability. Hence, eliminating certain error extraction processes because N-ver in testing finds the discrepancies mentioned above is self-defeating in two senses. First, the postponement of fault or error extraction until test delays the error extraction, thus increasing the cost of the fix. Second, eliminating an error extraction process which is not directly and only related to the unique error subset N-ver finds over Single-ver is wrong because no other error extraction is substituted andexhaustive testing is impossible. Argument: All outside faults, errors, failures all can effect software Lesson Learned: Faults injected prior to the writing of the software requirement specification are no more probably found in N-ver or Single-ver software using similar life cycles. That is, faults in the contract regarding processes or evidence, faults in system requirements capture and writing, or faults in system design are usually unaffected by N-ver, or Single-ver for that matter. Multiple experiments and real industry studies have shown that these prior phases account for the bulk of errors propagated into and from within the software. A very small percentage of these errors are also within the special N-ver subset which may be removed via back to back testing. Argument: N-Version costs at least N.3*$SV The costs in N-ver are not just those in supporting N times as many developers or suppliers and their development environments. Costs also incurred include coordination and travel amongst developers, the multiple overhead charges duplicated for each developer, and the additional coordination of differing sets of test plans yet using the same test data without disclosing the design aspects to the other developers. That is, each developer will have and require a separate overhead charge. Each developer will require face-to-face meetings and therefore travel costs are N times as much. Management of tests and test results is very sensitive in that discrepancies must be investigated without reference to another version. One ends up with each developer pointing fingers at the other for the root cause. In resolving these problems one cannot, as acquirer, disclose the one design to another developer and vice versa. Also, as N-ver relies on testing then the amount of time in testing should be longer than Single-ver, further exacerbated by the sensitivity in resolving discrepancies amongst versions. Argument: N-Version experiments show N-Ver still is susceptible to common human error (never mind tools, which are also susceptible to human error) and also do not fail independently. Human error in in all software, regardless of whether one is looking at the deliverable software, the in-house tools, and the off the shelf tools. This includes compilers. Caution must also be taken in compilers to use languages which do not involve the same company as they do not follow N-ver independence and their compiler for Ada will involve faults common to their C compiler. Argument: experiments were small enough and used lower experience N-versionites have attacked the experiments from Knight and Leveson saying that the experiments used only small programs and relatively inexperienced programmers, typically students. While statistical signifigance is a factor, the commonality of errors and the difference in error sets was the important point also. There are however other studies using industry level and experienced programmers which show a corrollary effect to that human error witnessed in the Knight/Leveson experiments. That is, each group of programmers varied only a little in their error while all were observed to make a core set of errors repeatedly. This means that N-ver proponents, hoping to achieve independence in the error dialect, must select and nuture the differences between suppliers, to the point of avoiding same-university educated programmers in any two suppliers. Argument: Complex Byzantine Algorithm and Voter Logic required The byzantine argument is actually not totally addressed in N-version for two reasons. Whilel it can be made independent through developers, the system, usually an aircraft, cannot due to weight and space considerations make all sensors independent. This and power sources complicates the assertion of independence beyond human capability to mathematically describe, and therefore prove. Voter logic is also a point of contention. If teh voter also uses the same set of inputs or a similar specifcation, the argument of independence is further, and more strongly than before, undermined. A voter using the same inputs is just another version and if it decides amongst the other versions it nullifies the independence. A voter unable to use independent inputs is not prescient enough to ascertain which of the versions is then correct. A further byzantine. Lastly in this argument is the added complexity of all these independent inputs and these versions and the voter. It has been affirmed to the point we need not quote anyone that increasing complexity increases risk and decreases reliability. This is the anathema of N-version, too much complexity and the reliability gain in software is negative at the system level due to the resultant system level complexity driving down system level reliablility. The highest failure rates at the system level are in fact the sensors. This means big costs for software to gain reliability is directly at odds with simplifying the system for increased reliability. Software engineers will have to prove strongly that this increased system complexity, system level maintenance and spares requirements, are justified. Argument: SW Reliability The following is based uon my understanding of software reliability from M. Lyu, JPL, and B. Littlewood, U upon Tyne, Center for Sw Reliability. IMHO, Software reliability has not advanced anywhere near to the point of repeatability and surety that hardware reliabilty now enjoys. Measurements of software development and test often involve immeasurable parameters or are so invasive as to disrupt some development phases. This is strongly put but from an engineering standpoint, we haven't the tools to measure the software nor the gumption to measure the human, even if we knew what human to measure how. Using many variables and following incremental versions, as a small percentage of the whole both functionally and in line of code numbers, it is now possible to estimate reliability growth. This is all that I have seen fully developed and used at industry levels. Again, on software which undergoes little change in controlled processes, using little or no tool change, including compiler version update, with the same people on the project. If any of these gross variables change then the reliability growth model may well change. For example, Dr. Lyu's paper regarding JPL software and choosing a reliability model demonstrated that a serious software house with defined and repeatable processes, a corporate tool set, relatively fixed personnel of good quality, consistent application domain and type, even using very similar languages, could not count on using the same reliability model from project to project. Other studies demonstrate the same while most seem to make a particular model fit all cases by increasing variable or parameter type or count. This said, and I expect several retorts to that, can we also glibly say that reliability measure of an N-version software versus a Single-version software is a valid comparison? What if the N-version is on a communication network while the single-version is in a fighter aircraft? Or the N-ver was in a commercial airliner while the single version was windows 95? -- eine Flucht nach Vorn machen = make a retreat forward Truth arises from disagreement amongst friends (D. Hume (Scotland)) Loved and Missed, so Work Together and Rejoice, Phillipians 4:1-13 Archibald McKinlay, VI McKinlay & Associates St Louis, MO, USA Software Safety Engineering and Management arch6@inlink.com Definitely my own opinions Software can kill you...or at least what it controls can From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dr. Robert \"Bob\" Jacobson" Subject: CONF: "Virtual Humans," Anaheim, June 19-20 - REGISTER NOW! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Worldesign Inc., Seattle - Information Design [www.worldesign.com] Reply-To: san@well.com Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:39 Message-ID: ========================================================================= THIS IS THE FIRST CONFERENCE TO DEAL EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE TOPIC OF "VIRTUAL HUMANS": AVATARS, MODELS, AND INTEGRATED DIGITAL FIGURES OF HUMAN BEINGS IN VIRTUAL WORLDS AND COMPUTER ANIMATIONS. IT IS OF DIRECT INTEREST TO THE AVIATION DESIGN COMMUNITY. THIS CONFERENCE IS HAPPENING IN THREE WEEKS. RESERVATIONS SHOULD BE MADE _IMMEDIATELY_ IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING. EMAIL OR CALL: -> DR. SANDRA KAY HELSEL, VR NEWS, SAN@WELL.COM, 520-887-4485, -3267 FAX ========================================================================= Virtual Humans Conference 19/20 June, Hyatt Regency Alicante, Anaheim Introduction Two powerful forces are combining to open up the Virtual Humans marketplace. The first is the accelerating and tangible market interest now evident in all forms of Virtual Reality. The hype and the hope are at last giving way to solid commercial activity. Right across the board, from commercial training to entertainment systems, and from virtual engineering to heritage reconstructions, the market is maturing and growing, and multi-million dollar contract awards are no longer a rarity. The second, inevitably, is the Internet. Around a half-dozen on-line 3D communities are up and running, complete with their first-generation avatars. In a few years time there will be hundreds, and then thousands - social, cultural, commercial meeting places, visited daily by millions of people. What is crystal clear is that these virtual environments need to have virtual people in them. On-line social and games communities are designed specifically for that purpose. Virtual cars, aircraft, houses, retail stores and factories are not just for looking at - they will be used by real people when they are built, and they too need virtual humans, to check out their accessibility and convenience, maintainability and safety. Virtual shopping malls will have sales 'bots; historical reconstructions will have guides, sometimes taking the form of contemporary inhabitants; virtual fashion shows will have mannequins; virtual learning environments will have virtual teachers, demonstrators, and difficult customers. Until recently, there was no virtual humans marketplace to speak of: just a few pioneering research groups - notably Prof. Badler's team at the University of Pennsylvania, and the Thalmanns in Switzerland - a handful of products, and a few significant projects each year. There is now an unmistakeable undercurrent of change, and of new interest. The leading VR software companies are building or licensing human modeling extensions; performance animation is becoming commonplace at marketing events, and is moving strongly into the TV and virtual studio field; standards discussions are under way in relation to humanoids for ergonomic testing. More important still is that the graphics and computational power necessary to support real-time virtual humans is starting to become affordably available. Silicon Graphics's InfiniteReality raised the performance threshold dramatically earlier this year, and all the trends suggest that comparable power will be on the desktop within two to three years. Virtual Humans '96 is the first event of its kind. It brings together leading researchers and practitioners from a wide range of disciplines, all with a common interest in the development of humanoid technologies of one kind or another. The audience for the conference will similarly comprise people with widely differing backgrounds - creative arts professionals, industrial designers, ergonomics and human factors specialists, academic researchers, anthropologists and sociologists, aerospace and military simulation experts, entertainment industry representatives. At the conference they will encounter many different types of humanoid - both autonomous and human-controlled - with differing levels of capability. In terms of appearance, motion, behavior, intelligence, communication and control, they will see just about the best there is, anywhere in the world. Importantly, delegates and speakers will also meet each other: contacts and cross-fertilization are crucial by-products of events such as this. And they will be present at the public launch of what will surely become a huge new global industry and marketplace, and one which may eventually have implications for real humans which we cannot yet guess. DAY 1 - SESSION 1 'COMPOSITE VIRTUAL HUMANS' Moderator - Prof. Nadia Thalmann 8.00 am - 9.10 am: Registration 9.10 am - 9.15 am Welcome and Opening Remarks Dr Sandra K. Helsel, VR NEWS 9.15 am - 9.45 am Keynote Address 9.45 am - 10.45 am In Pursuit of Realism Prof. Nadia Magnenat Thalmann MIRALAB-CUI, University of Geneva Prof. Nadia Thalmann has pioneered European research into Virtual Humans for over 15 years, and enjoys an outstanding international reputation both for her spectacular state-of-the-art demonstrations, and for the rigorous and intensive academic research programs which make them possible. One of her most celebrated projects was the creation of a lifelike real-time 3D computer graphics articulated model of Marilyn Monroe. The current focus of her work is the development of realistic virtual humans with characteristics such as emotions, clothes and hair. Prof. Thalmann will demonstrate examples of her latest work, created using the newly-released MARILYN software, provide some insights into how she sees the applications and capabilities of Virtual Humans developing in the near term, and discuss the principal technical barriers which future research programs must address. 10.45 am - 11.15 am: Refreshment Break 11.15 am - 12.15 pm The State of the Art Prof. Norman Badler Center for Human Modeling and Simulation, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Badler has been engaged for something over 20 years in human body modeling and simulation. Much of his work at the University of Pennsylvania has centered on the Jack software, widely regarded as the world's most advanced and versatile commercially-available human modeling system. Jack's capabilities include complex articulated motion, with balance-aware motion modification; collision avoidance; gesture and facial expressions; goal-based tasking; natural language processing, and many other features. It is used for a wide range of applications, including industrial ergonomic testing, military simulation and training, and human factors research. In his presentation, Prof Badler will demonstrate an advanced version of Jack, discuss some of its most effective applications, and look ahead to what further developments and applications are likely over the nextcouple of years. 12.15 pm - 1.45 pm: Lunch Break SESSION 2 - 'APPEARANCE & ANIMATION' 1.45 pm - 2.30 pm Human Modeling for Animation Chris Landreth Alias/Wavefront Inc. Chris Landreth is one of the world's leading animation professionals. He specializes in detailed and accurate human modeling, and was recently nominated for an academy award for his work on 'the end', a short animation film produced by Alias/Wavefront The animation software industry has already solved many of the graphical presentation problems which real-time modelers will need to address, in areas such as face, hair and clothes simulation. Chris will demonstrate some of his work in this field, focussing on the advanced facial and body animation work which made 'the end' possible. 2.30 pm - 3.15pm Real-Time Human Animation Marc Raibert Boston Dynamics Inc. Marc Raibert, founder of Boston Dynamics, was formerly Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT. In previous work, he developed laboratory robots that used control systems for balance and to coordinate their motions. These robots had legs on which they ran, jumped, traveled on simple paths, ran fast (13 mph), climbed a simple stairway, and did simple gymnastic maneuvers. Raibert's approach to automated computer characters is to adapt control systems from robotics, and to combine them with physics-based simulation, to allow the creatures to move with physical realism, without an animator specifying all the details. Boston Dynamics creates automated computer characters and engineering simulations for things that move. Marc Raibert will explain his company's approach to the simulation of realistic human motion, and demonstrate some of their latest work. 3.15pm - 3.45 pm: Refreshment Break 3.45 pm - 4.30 pm Virtual Theater David Morin SOFTIMAGE Microsoft By synchronizing a real-time 3D computer environment to a real world camera you can create a Virtual Theater, whose sets can be populated with a mixture of real people and virtual characters. Live actors can be positioned between layers of computer-generated 3D background, where they can interact with virtual actors. David Morin, Special Projects Director, will demonstrate the capabilities of the SOFTIMAGE Microsoft Virtual Theater software technology, and discuss some of its applications, which include virtual studios, 3-D game simulations, virtual reality for location-based entertainment, fast previews for post-production special effects, and previsualization and walk-throughs for engineering and architects 4.30 pm - 5.15pm High-Level Control of Human Motion Prof. Jessica Hodgins Georgia Institute of Technology Computer animations and virtual environments both require a source of motion for their characters. Prof. Hodgins's group is exploring one possible solution to this problem: applying high-level control algorithms to physically realistic models of the systems to be animated. The goal is to allow the animator to control the system at a high level and without an understanding of the underlying forces and torques or the motion of the individual joints. Her current research focuses on the control of dynamic physical systems, both natural and human-made, and explores techniques that may someday allow robots and animated creatures to plan and control their actions in complex and unpredictable environments. She will explain the basis of control systems that allow rigid body models of humans to run or bicycle at a variety of speeds, bounce on a trampoline, and perform handspring vaults and platform dives. 5.15pm - 6.00 pm Synthespians Jeff Kleiser Kleiser/Walczak Construction Co. Jeff Kleiser's and Diana Walczak's background and credits in the computer animation and special effects fields range from 'Tron' and 'Flight of the Navigator', via 'Stargate', to 'Clear and Present Danger' and 'Honey I Shrunk the Theater'. Their ground-breaking human animation work on 'Judge Dredd' , based around a 3D full body scan of Sylvester Stallone, received international acclaim, and is an example of the 'synthespian' concept, created (and trademarked) by Kleiser/Walczak in the late 1980's. The company recently opened Synthespian Studios, a production facility designed specifically to create computer-generated characters. Jeff Kleiser lectures widely on the subject of computer animation, to both academic and commercial audiences. In his presentation, he will show examples of some recent work, and discuss the implications of introducing synthespians into real-time virtual environments. DAY 2 - SESSION 3 'INTELLIGENCE AND COMMUNICATION' Moderator: Prof. Norman Badler 9.00 am - 9.45 am Julia, the Chatterbot Michael Mauldin Carnegie Mellon University Julia operates in a text-only virtual world called a MUD (Multi-User Domain). She is a robot user, with the ability to conduct apparently intelligent conversations with human users, many of whom are unaware that she is not human. Developed over a period of five years by Michael Mauldin, who will demonstrate her capabilities, she is currently the most advanced example of what were originally called Maas-Neotek robots, from William Gibson's book 'Neuromancer'. Julia analyses the structure and meaning and context of what is said to her, distinguishes between comments, questions, etc., accesses an encyclopedic database of response components, and assembles plausible conversational English responses, employing humor, sarcasm, politeness, impatience, and diplomacy, as appropriate. 9.45 am - 10.30 am Multimodal Interaction with Humanoid Characters Kristinn Thorisson MIT Media Lab When people talk to each other they generally use a wealth of gesture, speech, gaze and facial expressions to communicate the intended content. Complex information is combined in a concise manner and representational styles are chosen in real-time as the conversation unfolds. Kris Thorisson has been a researcher at the MIT Media Lab since 1990. His recent work centers on humanoid interface agents, and in particular on capturing elements that are critical to multimodal dialogue between a real and a virtual human. Techniques such as eye tracking, speech recognition, etc. are used to generate responses, including speech and gesture, from the virtual human in real-time. His system is called 'Ymir', and he will demonstrate its capabilities using a virtual human called 'Gandalf'. 10.30 am -11.00 am: Refreshment Break 11.00 am - 11.45 am Modeling Perceptive Virtual Humans with MARILYN Prof Daniel Thalmann Swiss Federal Institute of Technology MARILYN is a powerful and versatile virtual human simulation system. It was developed during a five-year project funded by the European Union, and has now been released commercially. It includes facial animation, body animation with deformations, grasping and walking, and hair and clothes simulation. It also supports autonomy and perception, and can be used to create simulations in which virtual humans move around in complex environments they may know and recognize, and in which they can for example play ball games based on their visual and tactile perception, and react to other virtual humans, and to real humans. Prof. Thalmann will speak on the subject of autonomous and perceptive virtual humans, and will demonstrate some of the work which has been carried out using the MARILYN software. 11.45 am - 12.30 pm Synthetic Digital Societies Prof. Paul Rosenbloom University of Southern California Prof. Rosenbloom's AI research activities include responsibility for the Soar Project at USC. Soar has been under development since 1983, and is a multi-disciplinary, multi-site attempt to build a general cognitive architecture. A current application is Soar IFOR (Intelligent Forces), the ultimate intent of which is to develop automated pilots whose behavior in simulated battlefields is nearly indistinguishable from that of human pilots. A prototype was deployed with some success in the STOW-E exercise in 1994, probably the first occasion on which an AI system was a direct participant in an operational military exercise. Prof. Rosenbloom will demonstrate teams of Soar-based automated pilots, and discuss some of the wide-ranging potential applications - and implications - of autonomous groups of computer-generated humanoids, capable of pursuing individual and collective goals, and of learning while they do so. 12.30 pm - 2.00 pm: Lunch Break SESSION 4 - 'AVATARS' 2.00 pm - 2.45 pm Speaking as a Virtual Human . . . Linda Jacobson Silicon Graphics Inc. Linda Jacobson, Silicon Graphics's 'Virtual Reality Evangelist', has for some years also been a leading figure in the field of performance animation. This typically involves a human performer, equipped with anything from a face tracker to a full body motion capture system, controlling in real-time the movement, gestures and speech of a computer-generated graphical creature. Performance animation has been widely used at marketing events, entertainment venues, and in TV shows. With the advent of avatar worlds on the Internet, a wide range of performance animation skills is likely to be required, by professional hosts and performers, and both active and passive visitors and participants. Ms Jacobson has gained extensive understanding of the physical, intellectual and creative demands placed on the human performer, and will offer some insights into her experiences, and guidance for future designers and users of these systems. 2.45 pm - 3.30 pm Avatars on the 'Net Mitra Paragraph International Avatars for on-line Internet communities have to be designed to operate within very tight processing and network bandwidth constraints. The widespread adoption of VRML and Java will further define the boundaries of achievable avatar appearance, motion and behavior. At the same time however, avatars on the net are expected to constitute the vast majority of the world's virtual humans, and considerable ingenuity will be applied to maximising performance within these constraints. Mitra was the principal architect of the avatar worlds developed by Worlds Inc. and of VRML+, Worlds Inc's VRML superset. He was a respected and leading contributor to the VRML 2.0 standardisation process, in the course of which his former company WorldMaker Inc., jointly with Silicon Graphics and Sony, formulated the Moving Worlds specification. He will discuss and demonstrate examples of the latest generation of Internet avatars. 3.30 pm - 4.00 pm: Refreshment Break 4.00 pm - 4.45 pm Avatar Control in Immersive Virtual Reality Dr Jonathan Waldern Virtuality Group plc The Virtuality Group has been the market leader in the field of Virtual Reality entertainment systems throughout the 1990s. In recent years their games and experiences have incorporated increasingly versatile autonomous creatures and avatars. The company's range of activities and developments has now broadened to include consumer products, including an Internet-compatible immersive VR system currently under development. Dr Waldern, co-founder of Virtuality, will preview this system, which incorporates innovative hardware and software technology for avatar control. 4.45 pm - 5.30 pm Panel Discussion and Closing Remarks From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: DC Voltages Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:39 Message-ID: In article , Steve Lacker writes: |> >rwbaker@airmail.net wrote: |> >> |> >> I have a question about the 28VDC used on commercial aircraft. Are |> >> there any special or unusual characteristics about this current? I |> >> have a need to take the 28VDC and convert it to 12VDC in an aircraft, |> >> any ideas? |> > |> |> There are numerous commercial DC-to-DC convertors available (we use the Vicor |> brand extensively). These things are pretty remarkable in that they will |> deliver a rock solid output voltage, even at their max rated current draw, |> while the input voltage varies over a factor of 3 or more. They are also |> amazingly compact. I'll put another plug in for Vicor. The converters also use a 500 KHZ to 1 MHz conversion frequency, so it is easier to filter out conducted EMI. The radiated EMI from Vicor converters is almost nil. Efficiency is upwards of 80%, so there is little heat. Application is real simple. The original poster didn't mention what aircraft was the target for the project. Make sure you check out the applicable FAA regs for onboard appliances. In the case of air transport category aircraft (most of which use 28 VDC for the battery bus), DO-160B is the most common standard. This is apart from the STC you might need for installation. -- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu (Richard N. Rea) Subject: Re: DC Voltages Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:39 Message-ID: In article Konrad Kelley writes: > If you are not going to draw a lot of amps (i.e. jumpstarting >an engine, running flap motors) , basically all that is needed is an >appropriately sized resistor to drop 16V out before you supply >whatever is is you're running. The more amps , the higher the wattage >rating of the resistor needed to dissapate the excess energy without >overheating and burning up. You DON'T want to drop voltage in this manner! Either a linear voltage regulator or a switching regulator should be used to provide a correctly regulated voltage at the desired current. The switching method is more efficient but produces more noise, so it must be filtered appropriately. Follow the first suggestion and visit your avionics shop to see what they have that is already STC'd for aviation use. Don't fool with the aircraft electronics if you aren't certified to do so! Richard Rea From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rmhughes@iinet.net.au (Rick Hughes) Subject: Re: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: iiNet Technologies (Perth, Western Australia) Reply-To: Rick Hughes Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:39 Message-ID: gerhard@onramp.net wrote: >Onat Ahmet wrote: >> >> In article >> bradg@io.org writes: >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually the Aural warning for an engine fire and other things are inhibited >> >> during the T/O phase of flight. >I don't know which airplane you're talking about but I have never seen >an airplane that ever inhibits fire warning. >If door warning lights aren't inhibited (I can't remember how many >aborted takeoffs for door warnings I've seen) then fire warning surely >won't be. You're absolutely correct. The A330/340 does inhibit numerous warnings from 80 kts to 1500 FT RA, but there are 10 warnings that are never inhibited during take-off: - ENGINE FIRE - APU FIRE - ENG FAIL (ENG SHUT DOWN) - ENG OIL LO PR - ALL ENG FLAME OUT - L + R ELEV FAULT - AP OFF - CONFIG - FWC 1 + 2 FAULT - REVERSER UNLOCKED There are a further 14 warnings (too numerous to mention here) that are inhibited from 80 kts until liftoff, but you will be presented with a full warning once airborne. You will be pleased to hear that DOOR Warnings ARE inhibited from 80 Kts until 1500 FT RA. Rick Hughes Perth Western Australia From kls Sat Jun 1 16:32:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@SEI.CMU.EDU (Mark Bell) Subject: Mothballed Airliners Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Software Engineering Institute Date: 01 Jun 96 16:32:39 Message-ID: Len Morgan, in his Flying Magazine column "Vectors" of some years ago, made several references to an airliner graveyard in either North or South Carolina. He said his son, who was a B727 crewmember, used to see it regularly while at "work". Anyone have anymore info on this ? Mark S. Bell 412-268-7925 (Voice) Software Engineering Institute 412-268-5758 (Fax) Carnegie Mellon University ** These are my opinions, 4500 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh PA.,15213 not those of the SEI or CMU ** From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ron Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Gateway Online Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:11 Message-ID: Curtis R. Anderson wrote: > >>Does anyone know if Northwest Airlines operates any 747SP's ? > >Northwest does not have any 747SPs. > Funny... I flew in a NW 747SP in early '84 from Seoul to Seattle. Well, your mistaken.... I am an R/E and A/P for Northwest airlines and hired in on 7/12/84, we have never had any SP's before or after my hire... NW only had/has 747-100's 747-200's and 747-400's never an SP! From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pandy@tcp.co.uk (Andrew Cameron) Subject: Last flight of Comet 4?? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Total Connectivity Providers - Internet access for the UK Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:12 Message-ID: Comet 4C XS235 of A&AEE Boscombe Down was due to take part in the Heathrow flypast today, but has made an emergency landing at Filton (Bristol) with a cockpit fire this morning - source is BBC CEEFAX. The aircraft is believed low in hours (7500 hrs to 1989) but was a candidate for retiral. Was this the last flight of a Comet? (excluding the Nimrod derivative) From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pandy@tcp.co.uk (Andrew Cameron) Subject: Last flight of Comet 4 - NO Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Total Connectivity Providers - Internet access for the UK Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:12 Message-ID: Earlier I wrote: "Comet 4C XS235 of A&AEE Boscombe Down was due to take part in the Heathrow flypast today, but has made an emergency landing at Filton (Bristol) with a cockpit fire this morning - source is BBC CEEFAX. "The aircraft is believed low in hours (7500 hrs to 1989) but was a candidate for retiral. "Was this the last flight of a Comet? (excluding the Nimrod derivative)" I was too quick. The Comet was reported on the ground for 3 hours at Filton, but took-off and has been to Stansted and overflew LHR as planned on live TV, with video link from the cockpit. The supporting television coverage included a pre-recorded pilot interview; it now has 8000 hours and is for disposal at the end of this year. Sorry about being rather quick with the first report. The original CEEFAX was more graphic - described smoke coming from the cockpit - but there was no idication of any smoke damage on the broadcast. From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: What happened to the BAe146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:12 Message-ID: michael piersdorff (piersdorff.michael@ic.gc.ca) wrote: : I flew Air Nova BAe146s a few times from Montreal to Halifax and : return. It is the only airliner I have ever been on for which the : cabin crew had to apologize twice during the trip: : And as we descended for landing, FA once again apologized as the : pressurisation system filled the cabin with fog. The fog problem has occurred to me once or twice in other aircraft. I don't think it has anything specifically to do with the BaE146 -- Gerry From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:12 Message-ID: In article , Ed Graf wrote: >Since we are posting "for the record", the PSA 146 that "crashed after >a disgruntled employee killed the pilots" was a USAir employee and had >absolutely no relationship with PSA. He was a five-time loser and a >real tribute to the "then" management skills at USAir. Except PSA was already owned by USAir at the time although PSA operated as a separate airline until the following April. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: So, how safe are oxygen generators in their INTENDED location? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:12 Message-ID: >>... cargo, just how safe is it to have them "stored" in the overhead >> compartments? > Gary Moffitt writes: >A good point. I am an airline mechanic and have never been able to >receive a satisfactory for that question although I have sought an >answer>from our maintenence training department for several years. >... I have been tempted to discharge one myself to see how hot it >actually got and how hot it made the surrounding area, unfortunately I >think my boss would not approve of the experiment. >Gary S. Moffitt Good for you, Gary. It is your kind of attitude that makes aviation so safe. Maybe you should ask training once again for info. I'll bet they're a lot smarter now, and more inclined to demonstate activating an oxygen generator. They must be expensive, or you would have been able to light one off before this. RD From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aircargo@cris.com (Michal Douglas) Subject: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Coastal Air Transport Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:12 Message-ID: The RFD for m.t.a-i.c. is about to go up for vote. I urge anyone interested in the debate, either pro or con, to make you comments known to news.groups - Michal Douglas http://www.concentric.net/~aircargo The Home Page for the proposed Usenet Newsgroup misc.transport.air-industry.cargo From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@mallard.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: T-Tailed aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:13 Message-ID: In article lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Chilukuri) writes: > Early aircraft had a taut wire stretching from the vertical tail to the > cockpit area of the fuselage -- was this an antenna too? GA aircraft still have this wire. This is provides the Automatic Direction Finder (ADF) with a "sense" signal. To wit: A modern ADF requires several antennas; a "loop" antenna for direction finding, and one "sense" antenna to resolve 180 degree phasing ambiguity. On GA aircraft (and older, non-transonic transports), the sense antenna is often a long wire stretched from the tail to the forward part of the fuselage. 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 Sun Jun 2 16:20:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drela@athena.mit.edu (Mark Drela) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:13 Message-ID: In article , domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) writes: |> The flow of engines pod-mounted beneath a wing counteract the |> circulation of the wing, thus reducing lift, whereas engines mounted |> above the wing would enhance lift. Careful here. You cannot relate the lift directly to the circulation if blowing is used. The derivation of the Kutta-Joukowsky relation between lift and circulation... Lift/span = rho V Gamma the circulation "Gamma" describes the flow behavior in the farfield of the airfoil (i.e. from far away, the airfoil looks like a point vortex). A jet of air is not a potential flow, so you get different values for Gamma depending on how you draw the contour. Also, the derivation of the above formula assumes that there are no momentum sources in the flowfield. A jet engine is a momentum source. Mark Drela First Law of Aviation: MIT Aero & Astro "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory" From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:13 Message-ID: In article domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE "Burkhard Domke" writes: -snip- > Another factor contributing to the demise of the VFW614 was a > deficiency in the internal aerodynamics of the RR-Turbomeca M45 > engine, which led to intermittent bursts fo the jet efflux pounding > the horizontal stabilizer, accompanied by some respective discomfort > felt in the cockpit. If I'm not mistaken didn't this lead to loss of the prototype, and subsequent slight change in the location of the horiz. stab.? -- Niels From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: seguina@columbia.dsu.edu (Armand Seguin) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Dakota State University Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:13 Message-ID: In article domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) writes: >The german VFW614 used the latter concept to demonstrate lift >coefficients of 4,0 and above. As the VFW614 was designed for service >from unpaved surfaces by third-world operators, FOD-avoidance was >another driving factor for the configuration. I saw the posts regarding engines mounted above the wings and ran across a current picture in "Cycle World" magazine of just such a plane. The photo was from a race in Dakar in Africa. The two jet engines are clearly mounted above the wings and close to the fuselage. The plane has a T-tail. I'm wondering if it is the VFW614? or? I was so curious that I cut out the picture, which mainly shows spare parts for motorcycles, but does clearly show the twin jet with engines above the wing. Armand Seguin Madison, SD From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: speedbird4@aol.com Subject: VR-BAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:13 Message-ID: Can anyone shed any light on the history of the 747-SP that is now registered VR-BAT? I saw it at the BA maintainance base at LHR last week. It appeared now to be some type of Middle-Eastern (Omani?) royal transport. Also, at LHR I saw a 757 with out titles carrying a VR- regn. (I think VR-CAU, but can't be sure...the T4-T1 shuttle was going too fast!) Any ideas as to what this aircraft's story is? Thanks! From kls Sun Jun 2 16:20:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: VR-BAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 02 Jun 96 16:20:13 Message-ID: >Can anyone shed any light on the history of the 747-SP that is now registered >VR-BAT? I saw it at the BA maintainance base at LHR last week. It appeared >now to be some type of Middle-Eastern (Omani?) royal transport. I couldn't find any 747 with that registration. That could either mean it's newer than my references or you copied the registration wrong. The VR prefix is for British Colonies, and VR-B is Bermuda. Possible, but V8- (Brunei) seems more likely. The only 747 I could find in Brunei is V8-AL1 (or V8-ALI, my references are inconsistent), a 747-430 delivered to Lufthansa in 1992 and sold to the Government of Brunei the same day. They also have an A340-211 (V8-BJH) for VIP flights, so why not a 747SP as well? (Omani registrations are A40-xx which seems an unlikey one to confuse as VR-BAT.) >Also, at LHR I saw a 757 with out titles carrying a VR- regn. (I think >VR-CAU, but can't be sure...the T4-T1 shuttle was going too fast!) Any ideas >as to what this aircraft's story is? VR-C is the Cayman Islands. The only 757 registered there is indeed VR-CAU, a 757-2J4 (sn 25220, ln 387) which wore N35108 during testing before being delivered to Sterling Airways as OY-SHB on September 25, 1991. It was reposessed two years later and stored at Copenhagen for ten months before being leased by Diamond Aviation International of the Cayman Islands on July 5, 1994. They apparently use it as an executive aircraft. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ability@zetnet.co.uk (Joe Curry) Subject: B757. Maximum seating? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:48 Message-ID: It has surprised a lot of readers in the various aviation newsgroups that the B757 on charter flights from the UK are configured for 235 pax. I can speak for experience on recent flights that Britannia Airways fly all their B757,s on short and medium haul to this configuration. Are BY alone in this sardine tin config? is it commom elsewhere? -- ability@zetnet.co.uk _|_ Joe Curry --o--O--o-- >From the shadow of North Berwick Law in East Lothian, "Bonnie Scotland" Edinburgh Airport is Britain,s fastest growing. Visit us soon."Hoots mon" From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B757. Maximum seating? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:48 Message-ID: >It has surprised a lot of readers in the various aviation newsgroups >that the B757 on charter flights from the UK are configured for 235 >pax. Boeing literature shows a maximum of 231 seats for the 757-200, with 28-/29-/30-inch seat pitch, but Britannia is indeed listed as packing 235 seats into a 757-200. The Boeing count is with the four main doors per side; with three main doors and two overwing exits per side, and omitting the "window" seats at one exit row, you'd end up with the 235 count. Pretty brutal if you ask me! >Are BY alone in this sardine tin config? is it commom elsewhere? I'm sure there are other examples, but they're not common. I figured the Birgenair 757 which crashed earlier this year would be a likely candidate, but it only had 216 seats. The Chinese ones seemed like a sure bet, but they all have a mere 200 seats -- including either 8 or 12 spend on the decadent indulgence of a first class section, much to my surprise! Condor (a German charter operated) has either 207 or 210 on their 757s. Canada 3000 came close, with 233 seats on one of their 757s. (The others have only 228.) The only other examples of such sardine configurations were all in the UK -- Monarch also has them with 235 seats, while Air 200, Airtours International, and Caledonian (leased from British Airways) all have 757s with 233 seats. The Brits must be real gluttons for punishment! -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jop Vlaskamp Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:49 Message-ID: At 16:32 1-06-96, you wrote: > I have heard rumor that the TWA-painted Connie out of Kansas City is >available for hire. My company is interested in flying as passengers on >one of our usually boring interstate trips. Can anyone tell me an address >or phone number for the Save-a-Connie foundation? Thanks, RoyGbvgw Save A Connie has an Internet site at http://www.flightdata.com/sac/ I guess you'll find the address there. Greetings, Daan Vlaskamp The Netherlands vlaskamp@cuci.nl At 16:32 1-06-96, you wrote: > I have heard rumor that the TWA-painted Connie out of Kansas City is >available for hire. My company is interested in flying as passengers on >one of our usually boring interstate trips. Can anyone tell me an address >or phone number for the Save-a-Connie foundation? Thanks, RoyGbvgw From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: British Airways - How many DC-10's? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:49 Message-ID: With BA's new LGW-PHX-SAN about to start on July 1st I was wondering how many DC-10's BA has these days? Are they all still the ex-British Caledonian ones? Steve From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: British Airways - How many DC-10's? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:49 Message-ID: >With BA's new LGW-PHX-SAN about to start on July 1st I was wondering how >many DC-10's BA has these days? As of about a year ago, they still had eight DC-10-30s, though two were leased out to Caledonian Airways. >Are they all still the ex-British Caledonian ones? Yes, for the eight I found. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:49 Message-ID: After checking the ownership records behind every 747SP, Northwest never bought or leased a single one. I must also dispute Mr. Anderson's claim of flying a NW 747SP in early 1984. At that time, the only operators of the 747SP were: Iran Air, Pan Am, South African Airways, Syrian Arab, China Airlines, Saudi Arabian Government, Aerolineas Argentinas, CAAC, TWA, Korean Air Lines (Korean Air), Saudi, Iraqi Government, and United Arab Emirates Government. Since he says the flight was from Seoul to Seattle, I suspect it was a Korean Air Lines (now Korean Air) 747SP. From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:49 Message-ID: Niels M. Sampath wrote: > > Here's some interesting news: > In the latest Air International (May`96) there is a blurb about > Conair Aviation (BC, Canada) seriously thinking of converting a > 737-200 into a water bomber. While the idea of a 737 waterbomber might sound outrageous at first, it is really inevitable. There is a strong push to reduce the time it takes to get from base to a fire, while carrying a large retardant load, so over the years, ever faster and bigger aircraft have been used. Using a 737 is a natural extension of this evolution. I am working on this project and find it to be quite sensible. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Paul K." Subject: Re: Specific Info Wanted Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: FirstNet Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:49 Message-ID: I had the unfortunate experience of having been bumped by TWA at ATL (to MLI via STL) and given a voucher for ValuJet to get to MDW. It was 27 May 1994, and this was the first week of ValuJet's ATL-MDW service. Well, once boarded, we had to deplane, and wait for 1 hour, as some mechanics removed ceiling panels from the cabin interior. There was a thin haze (humidity?) throughout the cabin, and a faint "electrical" smell. I applaud the airline for at least sending people up to check on the aircraft, that is not my greatest concern. However, I failed to note the aircraft registration, and I'm curious (or blind) as I haven't seen a itemized specific-incident of the 7 or so "call-backs" N904VJ experienced. If anyone could give me dates and locations of each of the 7 "call-backs" (and their circumstances) I'd be most appreciative. Thanks! From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Snow Subject: Re: Russian/Soviet/Aeroflot Information Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:50 Message-ID: Get the book on the History of Aeroflot, by R.E.G. Davies, its excellent, and about as good a book that could be published from the west ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie Ex Northwest Arlns ESE, MSP Ramp, Green Concourse FAA PPL, IR, and ADX(in training) B727 Page Curator From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BTPB70A@prodigy.com (Jeff Ellis) Subject: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:50 Message-ID: I watched the Fox show "why planes go down" monday night. They said that the United 747 that lost a cargo door, some skin and several pasengers over the Pacific a few years ago was repaired and returned to service with United. Is this true? RareBearBTPB70A@prodigy.com From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:50 Message-ID: >I watched the Fox show "why planes go down" monday night. They said that >the United 747 that lost a cargo door, some skin and several pasengers >over the Pacific a few years ago was repaired and returned to service >with United. >Is this true? Sure. The damage was not all the severe, so why not? Many planes with far more serious damage have been repaired and returned to service. United did take the rather unusual sstep of re-registering it, from N4713U to N4724U. I've seen it at SFO and if I hadn't known the registration, it wouldn't have been any different from any other UAL 747-122. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@slac.stanford.edu |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Birgenair 757 crash - A&C article Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:50 Message-ID: In article Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) writes: >What I do not understand is if a pitot probe is blocked. the indicated >speed must be lower than the air speed, not highter ? Higher. An airspeed indicator basically measures the difference between static pressure and total pressure. These inputs come from two sources: static pressure from a static port, and total pressure from a pitot tube Let's assume that: P_stat = static pressure Dynamic pressure, q, is 1/2 rho * V^2, where rho is density and V is the true airspeed of the airplane. Ptot = q + Pstat. So the airspeed, v, is roughly proportional to Ptot - Pstat. If total pressure is held constant, then you'll note that *a* static value is trapped in the Ptot term, such that the steadily decreasing static pressure in the second term, as the airplane climbs, will result in a steadily increasing airspeed. So this results in velocity being proportional to: P_stat_blocked - P_stat_ambient Where P_stat_blocked is the static pressure when the tube was blocked and P_stat_ambient is the current pressure. You may want to plug some numbers into this: V = sqrt(2*(Ptot - Pstat)/rho)) Or: V = sqrt(2*(P_stat_blocked - P_stat_ambient)/rho)) Just remember to keep the two static terms (the one that goes into the velocity calculation and the one that goes into the Ptot calculation) different, since they will be different in this case (the value in Ptot will be stuck at the value present whenever the pitot tube got clogged). This explains why, as the airplane seems to accelerate, the pilots pull further and further back on the stick, in a futile attempt to slow down on the airplane, until the airplane eventually stalls out. By then, they're at such a high attitude that recovery becomes somewhat doubtful. >Francis JAMBON -- 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 Jun 2 16:23:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ladkin@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE Subject: Re: Birgenair 757 crash - A&C article Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:50 Message-ID: >P_stat = static pressure >Dynamic pressure, q, is 1/2 rho * V^2, where rho is density and V is the > true airspeed of the airplane. >Ptot = q + Pstat. > >So the airspeed, v, is roughly proportional to > Ptot - Pstat. Do you mean `sqrt(Ptot - Pstat)' ? P. From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tom Speer Subject: Re: Birgenair 757 crash - A&C article Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:50 Message-ID: Francis JAMBON wrote: >... > What I do not understand is if a pitot probe is blocked. the indicated > speed must be lower than the air speed, not highter ? If air is trapped in the pitot tube, then as the ambient pressure decreases in the climb, the airspeed can read high. Basically, the delta-p between field elevation and the current altitude must be greater than the dynamic pressure corresponding to the airspeed. TS From kls Sun Jun 2 16:23:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gsmoff@Mcs.Net (gary) Subject: Re: Birgenair 757 crash - A&C article Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MCSNet Internet Services Date: 02 Jun 96 16:23:51 Message-ID: > What I do not understand is if a pitot probe is blocked. the indicated > speed must be lower than the air speed, not highter ? Airspeed indicators, or in this case Air Data Computers, are also vented to static pressure in order to compensate for changes in air density due to changes in altitude. If you block a pitot port and decrease static pressure the indicated airspeed will in fact rise. The confusing part is why the crew would have ignored the other two airspeed indications in the cockpit. Those being the alternate airspeed indicater on the center instrument panel and the First Officer airspeed indicator which would have been driven by the number two air data computer, both of which were sourced from their own pitot probes and should have been reding correctly. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: What happened to the BAe146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:49 Message-ID: michael piersdorff wrote: >shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote: >>I flew in a BAe 146 about 16 months ago, on a United Express flight. >>I though it ws very comfortable >I flew Air Nova BAe146s a few times from Montreal to Halifax and >Aside from those two difficulties, I found the seats cramped for The UAE/AW 146s are configured 5-abreast. I have heard that the early PSA 146s (and perhaps the Air Nova 146s) were configured 6-abreast for the narrowest seats in the industry. I will tell you, though.... that my UAE BAe 146s flights never ended with the cabin filling with fog. -tim From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control/ hydraulic systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:49 Message-ID: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) writes: >>I do not believe there has ever been a crash of a 727 due to a failure >>of the flight controls. The DC-10, on the other hand, has had three, >>and the 747, 1. The jury's still out on the 737. >There was the Turkish Airways DC-10 out of Paris, and the UAL at Sioux >City. What was the third crash? AA 191 departing Chicago. Lost a friend on that one. -- 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 Sun Jun 2 23:01:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:50 Message-ID: dave@amiwest.com writes: > While the idea of a 737 waterbomber might sound outrageous at >first, it is really inevitable. There is a strong push to reduce the >time it takes to get from base to a fire, while carrying a large >retardant load, so over the years, ever faster and bigger aircraft have >been used. Using a 737 is a natural extension of this evolution. I am >working on this project and find it to be quite sensible. A couple of questions from someone who knows nothing about putting out fires from fixed-wing aircraft (in NZ they usually use helicopters with monsoon buckets, loading from the nearest lake or reservoir): When we talk about a "waterbomber", are we talking about something designed to drop ordinary H20, say that scooped out of a lake, or a more complex manufactured fire retardent? I note that a lot of "waterbombers" are converted float planes or flying boats, which I'd assumed scooped water into their tanks. I assume that a 737 waterbomber is *not* going to be skimming a lake.... I wouldn't have thought a 737 -- designed for a cruising altitude in the vicinity of 30,000 ft and a speed to match -- would be that well suited to the job. What about an aircraft like a BAe146, with much better low speed characteristics, yet still with a reasonable cruising speed? Am I missing something here? Or is the major factor availability of the aircraft for the conversion? -- 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 Sun Jun 2 23:01:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Snow Subject: Re: Snow on wings Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:50 Message-ID: FAR 121 states that aircraft must free of all snow from ice and snow adhering to the aircraft. If it was a dry snow, the crew might have felt that the slight accumulation would blow off during the takeoff roll and initial climb. One additional thing to keep in mind is when did this occur? If it was before the USAir LGA incident or after. New rules concerning de-icing holdover times didnt go into effect after the USAir accident. As usual, regulation by body count. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie Ex Northwest Airlines ESE, MSP Ramp, Green Concourse FAA PPL, IR, and ADX(in training) From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Snow on wings Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:50 Message-ID: In article whodgins@axess.com (W. Hodgins) writes: > Some time ago I was a passenger on a DC-9 flight out of Toronto in > January as I recall. Looking out the window, I noticed a fair amount > of snow on the wings...it was not removed and the aircraft took off > with snow blowing off the wings as speed increased. > I used to fly light aircraft in the early 70's and if I recall > correctly we were supposed to ensure that nothing, not even frost, > should be allowed to accumulate on the wings. > What is the criteria for large jets...is an accumulation of light snow > normally acceptable ? Unless there was de-icing fluid on the wings, the scenario you described would certainly appear to be of questionable legality (and potentially even unsafe). However, not knowing the specifics, I wouldn't feel comfortable making any further speculation, as the new Type II de-ice (anti-ice) fluids have very good performance even after several minutes in heavy snow. Aircraft shouldn't have any debris at all on their wings when taking off, as the aerodynamics during takeoff (high CL, flaps position, etc.) are critical. Any debris on the top surface of the wing can potentially cause severe degradation of the lift performance in a takeoff situation. (Even frost can be a significant factor in whether the airflow will behave nominally.) Even with de-icing fluids, airlines currently go through significant pain to ensure that the combination of preciptation rate, outside temperature, de-ice fluid composition and temperature, and time will make the de-ice fluid capable of performing its job. 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 Sun Jun 2 23:01:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dave Lawson Subject: Re: Snow on wings Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AlliedSignal Aerospace Canada Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:50 Message-ID: W. Hodgins wrote: > > Some time ago I was a passenger on a DC-9 flight out of Toronto in > January as I recall. Looking out the window, I noticed a fair amount > of snow on the wings...it was not removed and the aircraft took off > with snow blowing off the wings as speed increased. The key here is the concept of contaminants 'adhering' to the surface. If the pilot can ascertain that the contaminant (in this case snow) is not adhering, then they are allowed to depart without being de-icied. From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jimc@internorth.com (Jim Cameron) Subject: Re: Snow on wings Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NWT air Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:50 Message-ID: whodgins@axess.com (W. Hodgins) wrote: >Some time ago I was a passenger on a DC-9 flight out of Toronto in >January as I recall. Looking out the window, I noticed a fair amount >of snow on the wings...it was not removed and the aircraft took off >with snow blowing off the wings as speed increased. It is not the dry fluffy snow which causes problems. It is the wet sticky snow or snow that has melted on warm aircraft wing and refrozen that destroys lift. Transport Canada makes every Canadian airline maintain a deicing manual. This manual spells out exactly when to deice and the ammount of time allowed from deicing until takeoff. Manager Dispatch NWT air Yellowknife, NWT CANADA From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gsmoff@Mcs.Net (Gary S. Moffitt) Subject: Re: Snow on wings Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MCSNet Internet Services Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:51 Message-ID: In article , whodgins@axess.com (W. Hodgins) wrote: > Some time ago I was a passenger on a DC-9 flight out of Toronto in > January as I recall. Looking out the window, I noticed a fair amount > of snow on the wings...it was not removed and the aircraft took off > with snow blowing off the wings as speed increased. > I used to fly light aircraft in the early 70's and if I recall > correctly we were supposed to ensure that nothing, not even frost, > should be allowed to accumulate on the wings. > What is the criteria for large jets...is an accumulation of light snow > normally acceptable ? According to FARs no aircraft is supposed to be allowed to take off with snow or ice adhering to the wings, the size of the aircraft makes no difference. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter neville gurnell Subject: Re: Snow on wings Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc. Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:51 Message-ID: whodgins@axess.com (W. Hodgins) wrote: > > Some time ago I was a passenger on a DC-9 flight out of Toronto in > January as I recall. Looking out the window, I noticed a fair amount > of snow on the wings...it was not removed and the aircraft took off > with snow blowing off the wings as speed increased. > I used to fly light aircraft in the early 70's and if I recall > correctly we were supposed to ensure that nothing, not even frost, > should be allowed to accumulate on the wings. > What is the criteria for large jets...is an accumulation of light snow > normally acceptable ? The Canadian Air Regulations 540.2 (2) state "No person shall takeoff or attempt to takeoff in an aircraft if any frost, iece or snow is adhering to any critical surface of the aircraft." They do not define "adhering", however, in ground icing conditions a pre-flight external inspection of the ice detection strips (two black stripes painted on wings) and the critical surfaces (wings, control surfaces, horizontal and vertical stabilizers or any other stabilizing surface of an aircraft) must be carried out by a qualified person (flight crew member or qualified ground personnel) to determine if they are free of contamination. This inspection is to be carried out as close as possible but not exceeding 5 minutes prior to takeoff. Can an aircraft take off with snow on the wings? Yes. Is an aircraft allowed to take off with snow on the wings? No. It was the actions of a flight crew of one of Air Canada's Connector Airlines, Air Ontario in an F-28 that crashed shortly takeoff (Dryden, Ontario, 1989) due to wing surface contamination that brought this whole world of regulations down upon us. Cheers, Peter From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean.Ludovicy@ping.be (Jean Ludovicy) Subject: Re: Snow on wings Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: EUnet Belgium, Leuven, Belgium Reply-To: Jean.Ludovicy@ping.be Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:51 Message-ID: whodgins@axess.com (W. Hodgins) wrote: >Some time ago I was a passenger on a DC-9 flight out of Toronto in >January as I recall. Looking out the window, I noticed a fair amount >of snow on the wings...it was not removed and the aircraft took off >with snow blowing off the wings as speed increased. >I used to fly light aircraft in the early 70's and if I recall >correctly we were supposed to ensure that nothing, not even frost, >should be allowed to accumulate on the wings. >What is the criteria for large jets...is an accumulation of light snow >normally acceptable ? Normaly no ice or snow may be tolerated on any aircraft wings. Now in practice, if it is very cold outside and the snow is pure pouder, in small amounts, which doesn't stick to the surface , it will be blown of the wings as soon as the airspeed rises. This is safer than to use antiice fluid with short overhaul times when new snow is accumulating during taxi time which than may freeze on to the wing surface. In the case of your flight, it might have been this situation. Anyway, it had been decided like that by the captain of your flight. It was him who had all the information to make the right decision. We may on speculate. -- E-mail: Jean.Ludovicy@ping.be Fidonet:Jean Ludovicy 2:291/712.300 http://www.ping.be/~ping4921/ From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@SEI.CMU.EDU (Mark Bell) Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Software Engineering Institute Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:51 Message-ID: Back in the late 1980's, there was a group of folks around the Oakland CA area that had a Short Soylent flying boat. Air Classics Magazine ran a story on it, complete with some nice pictures. Unless there is another Sunderland now around the Southern CA area, I believe the So. CA flying boat refered to earlier in this thread is really the Soylent. I seem to recall seeing pictures of it with its engines run up and, if time permits, I'll try to wade through my back issues of Air Classics (1982 to present) for verification. Unfortunately, they don't provide a master or yearly index. Regards Mark PP/ASEL/IA C-170 N3850V Mark S. Bell msb@sei.cmu.edu Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University 4500 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh PA.,15213 From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jon46@ix.netcom.com (Jon H.) Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:51 Message-ID: The TV series "Skyward" or "Skybound" of the early 90's had some great air to air of both Mars flying boats in formation (the only such time) over Vancouver Island. From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk (Alain Deckers) Subject: [FWD] The T-43A Accident in Dubrovnik Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: I speak for nobody but myself Reply-To: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:52 Message-ID: Since it might be of interest to the readership of this group, I am forwarding the following item published in RISKS Digest 18.08 (on comp.risks). [A courtesy copy of this message has been sent to the original author.] --------------- Begin forwarded message --------------- RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Monday 29 April 1996 Volume 18 : Issue 08 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS comp.risks) ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:56:27 +0200 From: ladkin@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE Subject: The T-43A Accident in Dubrovnik There are many articles in RISKS wondering about various aspects of the safety of increasing automation in aircraft. We should remember that increased automation can also help to avoid accidents. Nancy Leveson (RISKS-17.21) pointed out some incidents in which TCAS (the Traffic Avoidance and Collision Alert System) seems to have helped avoid collision accidents. In RISKS-17.89, I referred to a report that the US Navy was speeding up acquisition of digital flight control systems for F-14s to help avoid loss-of-control accidents. There is another example in recent news. From newspaper reports, it seems as if the safety of flight IFOR 21, a US Air Force T-43A (a type of B737-200) which crashed on approach to Dubrovnik, Croatia, could have been enhanced by more modern navigation equipment. This flight carried US Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. The USAF does not normally release results of its investigations to the public. So I have summarised facts from a short *Washington Post* article, two articles from *Flight International*, and a *New York Times Service* feature article that appeared in the *International Herald Tribune* on Monday 29 Apr 1996. I also include some of my own observations and (a link to) the approach plate (map) for the Dubrovnik NDB Runway 12 approach that the aircraft was in course of executing. This summary is available in the Compendium `Computer-Related Incidents and Accidents...' under my WWW home page at http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~ladkin/ Peter Ladkin ***************************************************************** Reused without explicit authorization under blanket permission granted for all Risks-Forum Digest materials. The author(s), the RISKS moderator, and the ACM have no connection with this reuse. ***************************************************************** -- Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk [Personal Page] [Department] From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:52 Message-ID: In article , pravelin@us.oracle.com (Paul Raveling) wrote: > In article , Don Stokes writes: > |> The 707 model number was actually picked for the airliner before the > |> Dash-80 (Model 367-80) development was approved. The 707 number was > |> withdrawn for the prototype in an attempt to put the competition off the > |> scent... > > Actually my understanding is that it was the government they > wanted to put off the scent. The theory was that by using "367" > the government would think it's a derivative of the airframes > in the StratoCruiser/KC-97/C-97 line, and would be safer to > fund than a major new design. Everything I've ever heard here at Boeing was that the 367-80 designation was fabricated to keep Douglas from figuring out what was going on. According to the men who designed it, the Dash-80 was Boeing's reaction to the de Havilland Comet, which Bill Allen and Maynard Pennell had seen at the Farnborough Airshow in 1950. They came home convinced that to be a player in the future commercial airplane business, a jet transport was the only way to go. The Dash-80 was used as a demonstrator to the airlines and the government, the airlines for the follow on 707 (which originally was going to be called the 700 but Boeing Public Relations thought 707 sounded nicer), and the government for the KC-135 tanker. The Dash-80 itself was built on spec only- there were no contracts pending with either the airlines or the government. It was really more of a marketing machine than an innovation, as most of the technology was drawn from the B-47 and B-52. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:52 Message-ID: In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: > In article , Don Stokes > wrote: > > I understood that the KC-135 also has a bi-lobar cross-section; it's just > > not as pronounced since the upper lobe is smaller than on the 707. I > > tend to believe this as a circular cross section on would have been very > > much more difficult proposition to modify than one that already had the > > crease beam (at floor level) taking some of the pressure. > > This is correct. The 777 is the first jetliner Boeing has built with a > circular cross-section. To my knowledge, the only other airliner we've > built with a circular cross-section is the 307 Stratocruiser, which > combined the 299's (B-17's) wings, engines, and tail surfaces with a > pressurized fuselage. I made an error in this post. The Boeing Model 307 is the StratoLINER, not the Stratocruiser. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:52 Message-ID: Pete Hughes shaped the electrons to say: >717-165? What about the E3 production aircraft - what model numbers >should correctly apply to them? Not sure of the dash - but the E-3 and the C-137 are based on the 707. The C-135 is the 717. -MZ -- megazone@world.std.com 510-527-0944 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.creative - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:52 Message-ID: > The MD-80 was originally the DC-9-80, later Super 80. As I recall > three DC-9-80s prototypes were built, and two of them crashed. The FAA > certified the type without hesitation. Go figure. Yes, the crashed, but not like you imply. The #1 aircraft was doing a certification landing (flapless?) with a FAA pilot at the controls and he landed hard, resulting in the tail cone breaking off. The #2 aircraft was damaged doing a certification landing with no hydraulics. The pilot lost control, went off the runway and collapsed the gear. Trying to pick up the aircraft with two cranes, to blow the gear down, one crane tipped over and guillitoned the fuselage, down to the window line. Swissair was supposed to take delivery of the aircraft, but refused it, due to the damages. Hardly big time crashes.... Paul: DOS, before Microsoft bought it, was Quick and Dirty OS, written by Tim Patterson at Seattle Computer Products (now defunct). Tim writes in to computer magazines every now and then to set them straight about DOS. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Sun Jun 2 23:01:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Date: 02 Jun 96 23:01:53 Message-ID: On 27 Apr 96 01:14:33 , dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) said: M> The MD-80 was originally the DC-9-80, later Super 80. As I M> recall three DC-9-80s prototypes were built, and two of them M> crashed. The FAA certified the type without hesitation. Go M> figure. Part of it may have been embarassment--it was an FAA pilot who broke the empennage off the one -80 here at Edwards by slamming it down on the runway at about twice the maximum design sink rate. I happened to see this approach and was greatly concerned. Entirely pilot error, augmented by an "I'm the FAA pilot so screw you" attitude. Complaining about this is like complaining that flying an airplane into a granite cliff demonstrates some failure in the design of the plane. Even a carrier-qualified airplane would have been damaged, so great was the sink rate. (I remember this one very well; we were trying to get an F-14 ARI flight off, but the runway was closed for the entire day, really upsetting our schedule.) The other one didn't crash. It went off the runway (doing some of the runway work like refused takeoffs) into the dirt down at Yuma. They decided to slide airbags under it (a standard technique) and then put a sling around it and pick it up with a big crane. Unfortunately the footing for the big crane was not strong enough and the crane fell on top of the -80 and broke its back. Again, this is more like running a fuel truck into a wing; it's not really a design problem. They rebuilt the first plane but totalled the second one. I suspect that the insurance from the crane company may have affected this decision. I should mention, although this has nothing to do with airliners, that we had a accident similar to the Yuma accident here at Edwards. The crane company was moving a new missile (with a wound-composite casing instead of a metal casing) from the shipping spur to the test stand up at the Phillips Lab. However, instead of using oak baulks of some amazingly large size to make the "boardwalk" that the crane would traverse, they used something else smaller and weaker. The crane tipped over, dropped and broke the missile (a Titan, maybe?), and it ignited, exploding and doing incredible damage, including killing a worker. This was not really a test of the new casing at all. The contractor ended up in really serious trouble with CalOSHA and a new rocket was produced. However, after they got this rocket safely into the test stand and fired it, the case kind of unzipped and created one of the most beautiful explosions I've ever seen, throwing chunks of solid propellant out in a lovely starburst pattern. Now that was a real test of the design. The next one worked perfectly, having some changes in the construction. -- 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 Jun 10 12:16:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Summergreene Subject: 767 Landing gear Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hutchison Telecoms (Aust) Ltd. Date: 10 Jun 96 12:16:55 Message-ID: Does anybody know why the B767 has the only foward slung main gear in the boeing fleet, I was inetrested to see that the B777 did not follow this trend. Anyone know why David Summergreeene dsummerg@hutch.com.au From kls Mon Jun 10 12:16:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jeff Triebelhorn Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Date: 10 Jun 96 12:16:56 Message-ID: BTPB70A@prodigy.com (Jeff Ellis) wrote: >I watched the Fox show "why planes go down" monday night. They said that >the United 747 that lost a cargo door, some skin and several pasengers >over the Pacific a few years ago was repaired and returned to service >with United. > >Is this true? YES!! I was on the plane a few years ago and the replacement interior didn't match the rest of the plane. The replaced panels were cleaner/brighter than the rest of the plane. It wasn't extremely noticable but, if you looked closely you could tell. It is still flying around and has the nose # 8424. Jeff Triebelhorn __|__ triebelh@rastro.colorado.edu ---0--(*)--0--- http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~triebelh/Home.html ! ! ! DEN, B-32 and 36.... 777 Masters! :-) United Airlines Ramp Rat Naturally, all views are MINE! and Proud Owner From kls Mon Jun 10 12:16:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 10 Jun 96 12:16:56 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >Sure. The damage was not all the severe, so why not? Many planes >with far more serious damage have been repaired and returned to >service. United did take the rather unusual sstep of re-registering >it, from N4713U to N4724U. I've seen it at SFO and if I hadn't known >the registration, it wouldn't have been any different from any other >UAL 747-122. I've flown on it twice in the last 5 years. Once over the Atlantic in the damage area. I figured it was probably the safest part of that plane. It is scheduled for retirement by UA this September but as far as I can tell, that it will be one of the earliest of the the 747-1xx retirements is just because of when its overhaul (D-Check) is due, not its history. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Mon Jun 10 12:16:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 10 Jun 96 12:16:56 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... > >>I watched the Fox show "why planes go down" monday night. They said that >>the United 747 that lost a cargo door, some skin and several pasengers >>over the Pacific a few years ago was repaired and returned to service >>with United. > >>Is this true? > >Sure. The damage was not all the severe, so why not? Many planes >with far more serious damage have been repaired and returned to >service. United did take the rather unusual sstep of re-registering >it, from N4713U to N4724U. I've seen it at SFO and if I hadn't known >the registration, it wouldn't have been any different from any other >UAL 747-122. ><> Last year I flew from Montreal to Vancouver on a Air Canada B-767. For some reason, I was discussing B-767's with the Flight Attendant, and with a twinkle in his eye, he said "guess which 767 this is?". Since at that moment we were somwhere over Manitoba, it occured to me that the 767 was the one that had flamed out over Manitoba due to total fuel exhaustion (not enough fuel was on board for the flight from Ottawa to wherever it was going...). It was about a year or two after the introduction of the 767. There was confusion at Ottawa about pounds vs. kilograms and conversions thereof...the cockpit fuel quantity guage (or the system) was inop...so a manual check of fuel total was made...(I don't remember the whole story) The crew and ATC skillfully got the deadsticked aircraft to an old military base in Manitoba called Gimley (about 70NM glide from cruise alt!). The airport was in use at the time as a drag strip. (racing cars, not guys wearing dresses). They used the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) to get hydraulics, but the nose wheel never fully extended. The photo of the 767 from about a quarter mile away, with the nose on the ground and the tail way up is quite something! The damage was fairly superficial, and the airplane returned to service. This does not compare with UAL 747, but it goes to show that -airlines have a HUGE investment in each aircraft. -airplanes are build in a fairly modular fashion...sections and sub-sections can be replaced or repaired. YOU NEVER KNOW the history of the airplane you are on... Alan. From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:17 Message-ID: >Last year I flew from Montreal to Vancouver on a Air Canada B-767. For some >reason, I was discussing B-767's with the Flight Attendant, and with a >twinkle in his eye, he said "guess which 767 this is?". Don't believe them. Any (in)famous plane(s) in an airline's fleet quickly seem to become the whole fleet. A story in Airliners a few years ago detailed the search by a 727 pilot who encounterd dozens of ex-Northwest 727s that were *all* reputedly the very plane that D.B. Cooper jumped out of. None of them were the real McCoy, until he started working for Key Airlines, and once again, someone said *their* 727-51 (they only had one) was the D.B. Cooper plane. He once again resurrected his search for the identity of the real one to prove that this was not it, and much to his amazement, found that Key's 727-51 was indeed the Cooper plane. (He had never been on it elsewhere, so obviously none of those planes had been the real one.) >From personal experience, nearly any time I've been on a United DC-10 that was a bit odd in some way, an FA or pilot has tried to tell me it was one of the five ex-Delta planes. They have *never* been right, and when I have actually been on one of those five, nobody believed that it was anything other than an ordinary, original United DC-10. The moral: unless you check the registration, serial number, or other reliable source, don't believe you're on that special plane because someone's probably just trying to pull the wool over your eyes. >Since at that moment we were somwhere over Manitoba, it occured to me that >the 767 was the one that had flamed out over Manitoba due to total fuel >exhaustion ... This story has come up many times in sci.aeronautics.airliners -- search the archives (http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html) for "Gimli Glider" if you want the whole story. BTW, C-GAUN (fleet number 604) is the real Gimli Glider. Accept no substitutes! :-) -- 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 Jun 10 12:22:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:17 Message-ID: Re-registering the aircraft did not strike me as being unusual. There were so many photographs taken of the aircraft that United probably changed the tail number so people who saw the same aircraft in service (and happened to remember which a/c it was) would think they were on a different aircraft. It sounds like PR to me... From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:18 Message-ID: >Re-registering the aircraft did not strike me as being unusual. There >were so many photographs taken of the aircraft that United probably >changed the tail number so people who saw the same aircraft in service >(and happened to remember which a/c it was) would think they were on a >different aircraft. It sounds like PR to me... Most members of the public can't even figure out which *type* of aircraft they're on, never mind remembering registrations -- if they even knew how to tell. Lots of other planes have become notorious for one reason or another, but the only other one that resulted in a registration change that I'm aware of was a TWA 707. I don't recall exactly the story behind that one, but it was changed twice, because the pilots found out about the first change. It does sound like PR, but it's pretty unusual just the same. -- 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 Jun 10 12:22:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Information Request; Thai 777s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:18 Message-ID: This is not strictly an aeronautics question, but there are many industry types who frequent the group, so here goes: I need to find out the ship names which are being applied to the Thai 777 fleet. The registrations for them have already been allocated (HS-TJA thru HS-TJH), but thus far I've been unable to come up with the names for the individual aircraft. If anyone knows, or knows anyone at Thai that I could contact, an email reply would be *greatly* appreciated. TIA, Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dave Hill Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Myorganisation Reply-To: Dave@dchill.demon.co.uk Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:18 Message-ID: There are some obscure advantages also. A VFW 614 was used for research into boundary layer suction on engine nacelles. The extent of the laminar flow was measured from the temperature of the nacelle. Because this was above the wing, you could monitor the temperature very simply using an infra-red camera from the nearest cabin window... Also, at least one major airframe manufacturer had a proposal fro a six-engined derivative of a current four-engine long range airliner. Lacking sufficient space below the wing, the extra engines were to be mounted on pylons above (and behind) the wing. I think this also helped the twisting moment on the wing. It looked wierd, and required reengineering the engine interface to mount it 'upside down'. regards -- Dave Hill From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: podleski@nas.nasa.gov (Steve D. Podleski) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: whoknows Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:18 Message-ID: drela@athena.mit.edu (Mark Drela) writes: [domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) writes: [|> The flow of engines pod-mounted beneath a wing counteract the [|> circulation of the wing, thus reducing lift, whereas engines mounted [|> above the wing would enhance lift. [ [Careful here. You cannot relate the lift directly to the circulation if [blowing is used. The derivation of the Kutta-Joukowsky relation between [lift and circulation... [ [ Lift/span = rho V Gamma One may not be able to use Kutta-Joukowsky to predict lift with blowing but blowing does increase lift whether below or above the wing if the blown air is redirected downward. From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:18 Message-ID: Armand Seguin (seguina@columbia.dsu.edu) wrote: : I saw the posts regarding engines mounted above the wings and ran across a : current picture in "Cycle World" magazine of just such a plane. The photo was : from a race in Dakar in Africa. The two jet engines are clearly mounted above : the wings and close to the fuselage. The plane has a T-tail. I'm wondering You don't say whether the plane has the wing above the fuselage, but from your description it sounds like the Antonov An-72 : if it is the VFW614? or? I was so curious that I cut out the picture, which The VFW614 does not have a T-tail. : mainly shows spare parts for motorcycles, but does clearly show the twin jet : with engines above the wing. -- Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE* FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus- From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Q: Joined wings Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Loughborough University of Technology Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:19 Message-ID: On 29 Feb 96 02:04:15 , Bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) wrote: >In article , Laurent Pouvreau wrote: >>Does anyone know or has info about Boeings' joined wings aiplane? I believe you mean a configuration where the front wings are swept back and a rear set of wings are swept forward, the two sets joining at the tip to give the additional strength. This configuration has been discussed for the New Large Aircraft (NLA) in order to reduce the span of the aircraft to accomodate it at current airport gates. We did some research here a few years ago and found the concept did have advantages over a conventional monoplane arrangement. In order to balance the aircraft, the front wing must be placed further forward than for a conventional wing. The main difficulty is finding a landing gear concept that will work with the wing placed so far forwards. The joined wing and other alternative configurations studied by Lockheed are summarised in the following paper: "Review of Unconventional Aircraft Design Concepts", Roy H. Lange, Vol. 25, No. 5, Journal of Aircraft, May 1988. Personally I think multi-body aircraft offer a significant cost advantage over conventional designs, but they don't reduce the span, which is the main concern for the NLA. From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: British Airways - How many DC-10's? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Your Organization Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:19 Message-ID: >With BA's new LGW-PHX-SAN about to start on July 1st I was wondering how >many DC-10's BA has these days? Are they all still the ex-British >Caledonian ones? According to the June 1996 Air Transport World I received today, British Airways operates 7 DC-10-30 aircraft as of Jan 1, 1996. From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cas42879@aol.com (Cas42879) Subject: Re: British Airways - How many DC-10's? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: cas42879@aol.com (Cas42879) Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:19 Message-ID: I think that they are now down to six in BA colors. They are still flying into Houston Intercontinental on a daily basis (IAH-LGW). From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety,sci.engr,comp.software-eng,comp.software.testing Path: bounce-back From: dj320@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles Radley) Subject: Re: N-version software compared to others Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Reply-To: dj320@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles Radley) Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:19 Message-ID: Dear Archibald, Many thanks for a nice posting about the pros and cons of N-version programming. This is for some reason an emotional issue, with protagonists and critics arguing vehemently. There is no doubt that IF USED PROPERLY N-version programming has some value. It is less effective than some techniques, more effective than others. It can be accomplished more easily than Formal Methods, but is probably less effective. You pays your money and you makes your choice :-) Best regards, Charles R. P.S. I should point out to the FM protagonists, who delight in extohling examples of how N-version programming has failed, that is is also possible for FM projects to fail. Examples available on request. Anything can be screwed up if you try hard enough. :-) From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: N-version software compared to others Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:19 Message-ID: A small correction to Archibald McKinlay's interesting summary of N-version programming (Sun Jun 2 00:50:31 1996):- > The following is based uon my understanding of software reliability from > M. Lyu, JPL, and B. Littlewood, U upon Tyne, Center for Sw Reliability. Bev Littlewood is director of CSR, City University, London. We do have a very close working relationship with Profs. Tom Anderson and Brian Randell of the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, who are both heavily into software fault tolerance, except that their favoured method is called the "recovery block scheme", rather than "N-version". Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Roland Beck Subject: emergency of ATR in CDG Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TU Berlin Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:19 Message-ID: I was told on tuesday that an ATR of Eurowings performed successfully an emergency landing in Paris Charles-de-Gaulle airport. It seems that there had been two people injured during evacuation. The emergency procedure occured due to smoke in the cabin. Does anybody know something more? ----------------------------------------------------------- Roland Beck e-mail: beckcehg@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de phone: +49.(0)30.784 26 78 ----------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: AOL Online Conference with VP-Marketing for Southwest Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:20 Message-ID: Dave Ridley, vice president-marketing for Southwest Airlines, the largest low-fare airline in the U.S., discusses the growing Dallas company and airline competition as AOL's guest in the Commercial Aviation Forum chat this Wednesday, June 12 at 9 p.m. EDT. Jim Brown (DCFlyWrite@aol.com), senior editor of World Airline News, is host of the Commercial Aviation Forum. Please join us. David G. Davidson Aviation Forum Leader - AOL From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Robert M. Sherry" Subject: 737 SP/SL? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:20 Message-ID: Can someone tell me what a 737 SP is? or a 737 SL? I have two photos, one of an Air Nauru 737-200 weearing "Boeing 737 SP" titles on the nacelles, the other of an Air Berlin 737-300 with "Boeing 737-300 SL" on the rear fuselage. Are these real variants of the plane, or just an individual airline's gimmick? TIA Rob -- rms sherryr@a.cs.okstate.edu From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mleibelt@tcs.itis.com (Mark Leibelt) Subject: Re: Hush Kits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:20 Message-ID: >Hush kits can provide better fuel consumption, but only by a few >percent. On the DC-8 with the P&W there was a 3%(aprox) fuel burn increase...Some of the STC also limited the amount of flaps for landing to reduce the amount of power needed on final...But then came the landing performance hit... Mark Leibelt From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: What happened to STOL ?(was What happened to the BA146) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:20 Message-ID: In article tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) writes: >STOL seems to have petered out. I always thought that the DASH-7 >was an interesting looking airplane (never have had a ride) but >doesnt seem to have sold in the way that ATRs and DASH-8 have. I'm guessing, but wasn't Dash-7 production treminated in favor of the Dash-8. I don't think they were both in production at the same time. >What was the rationale? I've heard bits about being able >to use taxi-ways at major airports, but have never seen >such operations. Given the short take of run of a non-STOL >commuter plane, like a BaE Jetstream 31, a DASH-7 must >be amazing. It is. Before the Dash-8, the Victoria-Vancouver services were mainly DHC-7 operated. Words like 'stately' and 'sedate' come to mind when trying to describe riding in them. Take-off and landing were very slow and very short, and seemed to be accomplished with no changes in power settings (obviously an illusion). Cruise speed was something else, almost an oxymoron. Still on a 20 minute segment, who cared ? I was very sorry when the last DHC-7 left. >It seems that most of the major airports have installed >runway extensions and the like to handle modern jets. >Presumeably, 737-500s and F100s dont have the take-off >run of a DC-8-61 either. Does anybody know the reason >why STOL died? > The DHC-7 aimed at a merket which never really materialized. In the early 1970s 'STOLports' were supposedly going to be the future of air travel. AFAIK only two were purposely built, LCY and one in Montreal. The Montreal experiment faded after a year or so, and LCY has been expanded to a 'real' airport. I don't know whether current DHC-7 operators use them because they must (runway length etc.) or because they are fully depreciated assets which still do the job. I suspect the latter, with the possible exception of Wideroes. Anybody from Piedmont or ASA care to comment ? regards Brian From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ed Graf Subject: Re: What happened to the BA146? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet Online Services Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:20 Message-ID: Larry Stone wrote: > > In article , Ed Graf > wrote: > > >Since we are posting "for the record", the PSA 146 that "crashed after > >a disgruntled employee killed the pilots" was a USAir employee and had > >absolutely no relationship with PSA. He was a five-time loser and a > >real tribute to the "then" management skills at USAir. > > Except PSA was already owned by USAir at the time although PSA operated as > a separate airline until the following April. Larry, thank you adding to the record. Except I don't see any exceptions. David Burke was hired by and always worked for USAir, not PSA. The fact that he was out in LAX was because he had been removed from four prior jobs back East and was no longer welcome back there. Although PSA was many things, failure to terminate thieves and drug users and posting "ne'r do wells" to remote sites was not one of it's characteristics. -- Ed From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Stanford University Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:20 Message-ID: > Back in the late 1980's, there was a group of folks around the > Oakland CA area that had a Short Soylent flying boat. Air Classics > Magazine ran a story on it, complete with some nice pictures. If this is the one that I took a tour through two or three years ago at the Oakland Airport, parked adjacent to a small building with a lot of memorabilia in it and a guy trying to raise funds to put it back in service, then the last time I was up there, maybe a year ago, it had been moved across the street, off the flight line and into the yard of a funky little amateur aviation museum they have up there, and sadly appeard to be in pretty ratty shape and no longer cared for. From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:21 Message-ID: In article , jon46@ix.netcom.com (Jon H.) wrote: > The TV series "Skyward" or "Skybound" of the early 90's had some great > air to air of both Mars flying boats in formation (the only such time) > over Vancouver Island. The company that now has the two Martin Mars flying boats on Sproat Lake, Vancouver Island at one time had all four of them. One of them was lost when a windstorm flipped it over in Victoria Harbor. It was salvaged for parts. The other one was lost while fighting a fire. After taking on a full load of water, the dump mechanism failed to operate as the crew flew up a ravine in the mountains. There was no room to turn around, and the pilot was counting on the release of the water to let him outclimb the terrain. This had worked on previous runs, but when the dump doors failed, the plane couldn't climb fast enough and flew head-on into the side of the hill. This was conveyed to me several years ago by one of the employees of the company that operates the remaining Mars, so I can't vouch for its accuracy. There is a photo of one of the Mars taking off on the Website "On Step" http://weber.u.washington.edu/~cflyer C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:21 Message-ID: In article msb@SEI.CMU.EDU (Mark Bell) writes: >Back in the late 1980's, there was a group of folks around the >Oakland CA area that had a Short Soylent flying boat. Air Classics >Magazine ran a story on it, complete with some nice pictures. > >Unless there is another Sunderland now around the Southern CA >area, I believe the So. CA flying boat refered to earlier in this >thread is really the Soylent. You are correct, sir. I unearthed my copy of 'Survivors' recently and N9946F at Oakland is indeed a Solent. The fact they have painted it in RAF colors with a spurious serial number obviously fooled me ! The same reference lists two more Short 'boats still extant, one at the Musee de l'Air Paris (Sandringham) and one at Auckland NZ (Solent). regards Brian From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B-777 cockpit Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:21 Message-ID: In article , ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) wrote: > I recently was travelling Asia on business, and on one leg I was booked for > my first B-777 ride. I sent my B-card up to the cockpit and asked to be in > the jumpseat for takeoff... > > 2- There was a flight engineer station, immediately behind the co-pilot's > seat. The station consisted of a large flat panel display and a trackball. > The flight engineer, monitored systems and called up maintenance logs, and > maintenance bulletins on this display. The 777 does not have a flight engineer. It has a two-crew cockpit. The display you're referring to is called a "MAT" (Maintenance Access Terminal) and is used by ground technicians to access the 777's on-board fault reporting and diagnosis system called BITE, which stands for Built-In-Test-Equipment. There is a similar display in the E-bay under the forward cabin, and portable units (PMATs) can be plugged in at various points around the plane. The screen forward of the ppower levers in the center consol also can be used as a MAT. Unless the airline you were on ordered something different from the 777s I've been on here at Boeing, the pull-down menus on the MAT and on the flight crew's center display are activated by touch pads, not trackballs. All you do is move your finger around on the pad and the cursor on the screen follows. The flight crew's touch pads are beside them just forward of the power lever quadrant, and incorporate palm rests to make it easier to use the pad in turbulence. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikeburto@aol.com (MIKE BURTO) Subject: Re: Last flight of Comet 4?? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: mikeburto@aol.com (MIKE BURTO) Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:21 Message-ID: The Comet XS235 did take part in the flypast at LHR as scheduled. I was there - and a fantastic sight it was too! I beleive the reason for the aircraft being retired is due to financial reasons rather than the aircrafts airworthiness. Hopefully when the A&AEE do get rid, a new owner will step in and keep the aircraft in flying order. Yours hopefully Mike Burton (Air Enthusiast) From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chris Dahler Subject: Re: Who's in Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Italia Online Reply-To: dahler@iglobal.net Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:21 Message-ID: gary quart wrote: > > A question on flight and control. I work right under the path of the > approach to LAX, ya know where you turn left at Santa Monica, heading > of 070 maintain 2500, etc, etc. > > Right over the station where I work you guys get a turn to 160 and then > a turn to 230 to intercept 24 right, and then the your 9 miles from > Roman advisory. > > At this stage of the approach are YOU flying or are you setting the > heading bug and having the jet fly itself? Could be either. Where to click off the autopilot is largely a function of pilot preference unless a specific approach (such as a Cat II or III approach) requires the autopilot to be used throughout. Generally, by the time I am at the point you are describing, I've got the AP off and am hand flying it. Others might wait longer, others might have it off long before. CD dahler@iglobal.net From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: So, how safe are oxygen generators in their INTENDED location? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Telepath Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:22 Message-ID: In article , rickydik@ix.netcom.com says... >They must be expensive, or you would have been able to light one off >before this. I bought several at an airline 'garage sale' for a few dollars. Time-expired of course. I popped one or two.They get hot. But not very hot. These didn't burn holes in the cardboard box on which I rested them. brian From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: So, how safe are oxygen generators in their INTENDED location? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:22 Message-ID: I think that the DC-10 was the first (or at least one of the first aircraft) with oxygen generators, instead of bottled oxygen. During one of the first times they were actually used in an emergency, several passengers yanked too hard on their tubes and had hot generators come flying into their laps. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: siller@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Paul Siller) Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Counter Current Reply-To: siller@freenet.calgary.ab.ca Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:22 Message-ID: Don Stokes wrote: >dave@amiwest.com writes: >> While the idea of a 737 waterbomber might sound outrageous at >>first, it is really inevitable. There is a strong push to reduce the >>time it takes to get from base to a fire, while carrying a large >>retardant load, so over the years, ever faster and bigger aircraft have >>been used. Using a 737 is a natural extension of this evolution. I am >>working on this project and find it to be quite sensible. >A couple of questions from someone who knows nothing about putting out >fires from fixed-wing aircraft (in NZ they usually use helicopters with >monsoon buckets, loading from the nearest lake or reservoir): >When we talk about a "waterbomber", are we talking about something >designed to drop ordinary H20, say that scooped out of a lake, or a more >complex manufactured fire retardent? I note that a lot of "waterbombers" >are converted float planes or flying boats, which I'd assumed scooped >water into their tanks. This part of Canada tends to call the retardent- carrying planes "fire bombers" and the float planes "water bombers." The water bombers excel in parts of the country were there are many lakes, and offer a short load-drop-load cycle. However the water in a fire can evaporate(given time) and the area can start burning again. The retardent bombers are more useful over the longer distances between an airport and the fire. Ofsetting the greater travelling time, the retardent carried on these bombers "sticks" to the trees and helps keep the drop area from re-igniting. In the end the ground crews are the ones who really put out the fire - the air drops , help contain it. >I assume that a 737 waterbomber is *not* going to be skimming a lake.... >I wouldn't have thought a 737 -- designed for a cruising altitude in the >vicinity of 30,000 ft and a speed to match -- would be that well suited >to the job. What about an aircraft like a BAe146, with much better low >speed characteristics, yet still with a reasonable cruising speed? Am I >missing something here? >Or is the major factor availability of the aircraft for the conversion? Availablity plays the big part. The aircraft become rather single purpose after conversion. Ability to carry a load would play a second part. Having watched an A-26 drop it's load and SLIDE it onto the fire, i don't think you have to get that slow. Converted aircraft I have seen in Canada Grumman S-2 Tracker DC-6 Douglas A-26 Canso (PBY) All of these are surplus/unwanted. An old 737 would be cheap to pick up and with two engines, possible cheaper to maintain than the BAC-146. I don't think I could bear to watch a 737 fly in a mountainous area. >-- >Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. >don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.COM (John Liebson) Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ISFSI Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:22 Message-ID: Don Stokes wrote: >When we talk about a "waterbomber", are we talking about something >designed to drop ordinary H20, say that scooped out of a lake, or a more >complex manufactured fire retardent? I note that a lot of "waterbombers" >are converted float planes or flying boats, which I'd assumed scooped >water into their tanks. In general, tankers (for that's the proper nomenclature in the U.S. wildland fire service) drop a slurry, which may be composed of either or both short- and long-term fire retardants. It is possible to add class A foam to the water used, in place of the slurry, but this is not often done for various reasons, mainly relating to the type of aircraft in use and their dumping systems. (My specialty is the use of class A foam in the structural fire service.) There are actually relatively few scoop-type tankers in use, the Canadairs being perhaps the most common world-wide. >I wouldn't have thought a 737 -- designed for a cruising altitude in the >vicinity of 30,000 ft and a speed to match -- would be that well suited >to the job. What about an aircraft like a BAe146, with much better low >speed characteristics, yet still with a reasonable cruising speed? Am I >missing something here? > While I'm not a wildland firefighter, I know a fair amount about the subject; I have to agree that, in general, jet aircraft are not suitable for tanker use. Drops are made at very low altitudes and slow speeds, for example, places such as deep into canyons, that I'm not at all certain would be even safe in tanker terms for jet aircraft. I don't see even a BAe146 being overly useful in this application, although in terms of the aerodromes often used by tankers, this plane might have some advantages: Fields are often mountain-surrounded, have short runways, require steep approaches/departures, etc. With fires burning in New Mexico, most of the tankers are stationed at Kirtland Air Force Base, which is also the Albuquerque airport; a WW II bomber field, it has a *long* runway, but that one's out of service for rebuilding, so the somewhat shorter ones are in use, and are quite sufficient for the DC-4s/6s/7s, even the KC-97 being employed. However, this airport is really the exception: During the Hondo Fire, the Taos, NM, airport was used, and it is quite small and unsuited for most jet airplanes. We do use quite a few helicopters here, too: Both the Dome and Hondo fires saw even Skycranes in use. Now, the structural fire service is sometimes a bit bemused when a call is made for a tanker, and one shows up with wings attached, because the structural fire service more or less refuses to adopt the newer nomenclature of "water tender" for a tanker having wheels, a transmission, a road license, and no wings..... From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: Re: VR-BAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:22 Message-ID: In article speedbird4@aol.com writes: > > Can anyone shed any light on the history of the 747-SP that is now registered > VR-BAT? I saw it at the BA maintainance base at LHR last week. It appeared > now to be some type of Middle-Eastern (Omani?) royal transport. I saw it as well and was also puzzled. Its Qatari Govt. Must be new. My friend thought it may be ex-Aerolineas Argentinas...? -- Niels From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: VR-BAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:23 Message-ID: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >I couldn't find any 747 with that registration. That could either >mean it's newer than my references or you copied the registration >wrong. I saw it too, and can confirm it as VR-BAT. It is painted in Qatar (A7-) Royal Flight colours. While it is common for VR-B.. allocations to be used by offshore operators, VR-BAT is unusual in that it is way out of sequence. Many countries re-issue lapsed registrations, but I was not aware that Bermuda was one of them. Or maybe they have reached VR-BZZ and had to start over. Also, (re: British Airways DC10s) at LGW on the same day as above there was a Caledonian DC10 G-GOKT. Is this a new a/c or just a re-registration regards Brian From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bong Subject: SIA A340s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:23 Message-ID: I just finnished reading airbus' press release. In one of their article, AI wrote that SIA(singapore airlines) will use its A340's in SIA's singapore-paris route. i remember that SIA cancelled its MD-11 orders becuase SIA wanted an aircarft to carry a 60000 lbs. in this route, but during actual test flight showed that a MD-11 can only carry 40000 lbs. Now, A340-300 has a range of 7300 nm, and paris-sing. is roughly 6600 nm. I think It would not be possible for the A340 to fly non-stop because of the strong headwinds. Can someone tell me if I am wrong? From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Callisto Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Corinthian Internet Services, Sydney, Australia. Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:23 Message-ID: >I must also dispute Mr. Anderson's claim of flying a NW 747SP in early >1984. At that time, the only operators of the 747SP were: Iran Air, Pan >Am, South African Airways, Syrian Arab, China Airlines, Saudi Arabian >Government, Aerolineas Argentinas, CAAC, TWA, Korean Air Lines (Korean >Air), Saudi, Iraqi Government, and United Arab Emirates Government. Since >he says the flight was from Seoul to Seattle, I suspect it was a Korean >Air Lines (now Korean Air) 747SP. I think Qantas had 2 747SP's by 1984. Almost sure of it actually :) They still have them as well... (747-38) Trent. From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:23 Message-ID: In article , BBost0325 wrote: >After checking the ownership records behind every 747SP, Northwest never >bought or leased a single one. > >I must also dispute Mr. Anderson's claim of flying a NW 747SP in early >1984. At that time, the only operators of the 747SP were: Iran Air, Pan >Am, South African Airways, Syrian Arab, China Airlines, Saudi Arabian >Government, Aerolineas Argentinas, CAAC, TWA, Korean Air Lines (Korean >Air), Saudi, Iraqi Government, and United Arab Emirates Government. Since >he says the flight was from Seoul to Seattle, I suspect it was a Korean >Air Lines (now Korean Air) 747SP. > I don't remember NW had even operated a 747SP. However, your speculation that it was a KAL 747SP is probably incorrect, too. KAL has never operated between Seoul and Seattle, at least not on regular scheduled flight. (The other Korean international airline, Asiana, started services between SEA and SEL last year.) Seattle used to be NW's major Pacific gateway. From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mooney1@ix.netcom.com Subject: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:23 Message-ID: Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. I know it fits the Cat. just by using its weight, but if I'm not mistaken that was not the reason behind the ruling. Thank you ...... Mooney1 From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ISFSI Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:23 Message-ID: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) wrote: > As far as their being a "flop", Alaska Airlines flew them into the >middle '60's and didn't consider them to be "flops". That does not make the aircraft a commercial success, which is was not. Only a very few were built, Lockheed lost a lot of money on the project, most of the original buyers quickly disposed of them. It's not unusual for "after-market" buyers to consider a given aircraft successful; the Mercure jetliners fit that category, for example. Just because Alaska and one or two others were able to buy Starliners cheaply and utilize them effectively does not make the aircraft a financial success. From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Thomas Enblom <@eos.ericsson.se@erinews.ericsson.se> Subject: DC10/MD11 engine #2 redundant? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:24 Message-ID: Hi! I have a question regarding the tail engine of a DC10/MD11. I've heard a rumour that the tail engine (#2) is mainly used during takeoff in order for the aircraft to take a larger payload at takeoff compared to a two engined widebody. En route #2 is throttled back to a minimum level leaving #1 and #3 running at full throttle. #2 was also supposed to point in an angle slightly more towards the ground in order to support takeoff with large payloads. If the above is true is the L1011 also utilized in the same manner? Thanks. Thomas -- ================================================================================ Thomas Enblom M.Sc. !\ /\ /\ /! Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden ! \ / \ / \ / ! ALEA JACTA EST E-mail: etxtebb@eos.ericsson.se ! \/ \/ \/ ! From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gcaron@mack.Rt66.com (Terra Corp.) Subject: Re: DC Voltages Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rt66.COM, Public Internet Access in New Mexico Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:24 Message-ID: David T. Medin (dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com) wrote: : In article , Steve Lacker writes: : |> >rwbaker@airmail.net wrote: : |> >> : |> >> I have a question about the 28VDC used on commercial aircraft. Are : |> >> there any special or unusual characteristics about this current? I : |> >> have a need to take the 28VDC and convert it to 12VDC in an aircraft, : |> >> any ideas? : : The original poster didn't mention what aircraft was the target for : the project. Make sure you check out the applicable FAA regs for : onboard appliances. In the case of air transport category aircraft : (most of which use 28 VDC for the battery bus), DO-160B is the most : common standard. This is apart from the STC you might need for : installation. Two comments and one plug. 1) For a 12V airplane, you want to provide *14 volts* not 12V. Twelve volts is the battery voltage, the "system" operates on 14V, and many avionics will start to act strange if they get less than the desired voltage. Our avionics want at least 11 volts and are much happier if they get *over* 12V. The wiring between your power source and the box being supplied can easily result in a 1 or more volt drop. Get a voltage converter that can provide 14V out with 22-30 volts in. 2) Dave is right about verifying the FAA's requirements, but the spec he quotes (RTCA/DO-160C) is an environmental spec only. The airworthiness requirements are under FAR Part 21 for Air Transport A/C, and Part 23 for general aviation. The plug: We, along with several avionics manufacturers, make just such converters. Ours converts 28V to 14V and is rated at 5 amps continuous. Contact your local avionics dealer. Gerry -- Gerry Caron "Opinions are mine, not my employer's." gcaron@rt66.com PH: 800-328-1995 or 505-884-2321 Terra Corp. ABQ FAX: 505-884-2384 From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ability@zetnet.co.uk (Joe Curry) Subject: Re: B757. Maximum seating? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:24 Message-ID: In message kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: In reply to this: > >It has surprised a lot of readers in the various aviation newsgroups > >that the B757 on charter flights from the UK are configured for 235 > >pax. > Boeing literature shows a maximum of 231 seats for the 757-200, with > 28-/29-/30-inch seat pitch, but Britannia is indeed listed as packing > 235 seats into a 757-200. Is this practice blessed by Civil Aviation Safety bodies? Would they get away with this in the USA? > The Boeing count is with the four main > doors per side; with three main doors and two overwing exits per side, > and omitting the "window" seats at one exit row, you'd end up with the > 235 count. Pretty brutal if you ask me! I can vouch for that.!!!! > >Are BY alone in this sardine tin config? is it commom elsewhere? > I'm sure there are other examples, but they're not common. I figured > the Birgenair 757 which crashed earlier this year would be a likely > candidate, but it only had 216 seats. The Chinese ones seemed like a > sure bet, but they all have a mere 200 seats -- including either 8 or > 12 spend on the decadent indulgence of a first class section, much to > my surprise! Condor (a German charter operated) has either 207 or 210 > on their 757s. Canada 3000 came close, with 233 seats on one of their > 757s. (The others have only 228.) This might come as a surprise to this NG but BY actually fly long haul with this 235 config. I was in a row with a partition at the back and the seat remained upright through the entire 4 1/2 hour flight. > The only other examples of such sardine configurations were all in the > UK -- Monarch also has them with 235 seats, while Air 200, Airtours > International, and Caledonian (leased from British Airways) all have > 757s with 233 seats. The Brits must be real gluttons for punishment! What,s the choice? If you refuse to fly them, then you dont get to go. Combine this with horrendous nightflights arriving in the early hours of the morning and you can see just how brutal it is. I remember a group of Germans studying the Brits return flights at my hotel. They were doubled over with laughter at the time of the return flights! They along with other continentals absolutely refuse to fly at night. Perhaps the Brits are well disciplined or totally beaten into submission. -- ability@zetnet.co.uk _|_ Joe Curry --o--O--o-- >From the shadow of North Berwick Law in East Lothian, "Bonnie Scotland" Edinburgh Airport is Britain,s fastest growing. Visit us soon at EDI. From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bong Subject: delta LA-Hong Kong flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:24 Message-ID: What happend to delta's la-hong kong flight? Did dl abandoned it because of the range problem with their md-11's? Also, I once read an article in AW&T that Dl will make a stop in taiwan for refuel. Is is the distance of la-taiwan and la-hong kong simmilar? From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control/ hydraulic systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011 Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:25 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > My impression had been that no more than 3 of the 4 are present in any > one portion of the aircraft. For example, one system in the L-1011 is > located only in the aft section and does not venture forward to the > wings, while another is present only in and ahead of the wings, never > venturing back to the tail. The A system has a 'fuse' that is designed to stop flow of A system fluid (pressure and return) in case of a line rupture in the tail. This fuse is located forward of the nbr 2 engine firewall and above the stabilizer. The fuse is an electrically operated valve that closes when differential pressure between the pressure and return lines exceeds 35 psi. The valve can only closes in flight. All four systems power the stabilizer, but as you can see from the list that is the only thing in the tail that D system powers. A, B and C system all power the rudder and stabilizer. --------------------------------------- L-1011 Hydraulic System A System Engine Driven Pump on number 1 engine (A1) Power Transfer Pump driven by 'B' system (BA) The following are powered by the 'A' hydraulic system Stabilizer Rudder Aileron, INBD, Left Aileron, OTBD, Left Spoiler 2L Direct Lift Control Autopilot Servos Leading Edge Slats Trailing Edge Flaps Tail Skid (tail skid not installed on -500 airplanes) B System Engine Driven Pump on number 2 engine (B1) Power Transfer Pump powers 'A' system Air Turbine Motor pump powered by pneumatic system (B2) Electric Motor Driven Pump (B3) Ram Air Turbine Pump (B4) The following are powered by the 'B' hydraulic system Stabilizer Rudder Aileron, INBD, Left Aileron, INBD, Right Aileron, OTBD, Left Aileron, OTBD, Right Spoilers 1L, 1R, 4L, 4R, 6L, 6R Direct Lift Control Autopilot Servos Normal Brakes Parking Brakes C System Engine Driven Pump on number 2 engine (C1) Air Turbine Motor pump powered by pneumatic system (C2) Electric Motor Driven Pump (C3) Power Transfer Pump powers 'D' system The following are powered by the 'C' hydraulic system Stabilizer Rudder Aileron, INBD, Left Aileron, INBD, Right Spoilers 3L, 3R, 5L, 5R Leading Edge Slats Trailing Edge Flaps Landing Gear Nose Gear Steering Alternate Brakes D System Engine Driven Pump on number 3 engine (D1) Power Transfer Pump driven by 'C' system (CD) The following are powered by the 'D' hydraulic system Stabilizer Aileron, INBD, Right Aileron, OTBD, Right Spoiler 2R From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control/ hydraulic systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:25 Message-ID: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >>There was the Turkish Airways DC-10 out of Paris, and the UAL at Sioux >>City. What was the third crash? > >I believe he's referring to AA 191 (Chicago; 1979), though I would >disagree with that reference. The engine separation damaged one of >the hydraulic systems, which in turn caused the leading edge slats on >the left wing, which unlike other designs lacked any sort of mechnical >lock, to retract. The non-redundant stall warning and slat disagree- >ment systems were powered only by the engine which separated from the >airframe, and thus the pilots were not aware of the asymmetric lift, >nor of the left-wing stall, once they reduced airspeed in compliance >with AA operational procedures. With these warning systems intact, >simulations showed that the plane was still flyable -- there was no >total hydraulic failure and the flight controls were largely intact. I would argue that the slats are considered a flight control, and that the failure of the hydraulic system did, indeed, trigger a failure mode which resulted in the crash of the airplane. We can argue over a few knots, but the fact is, those knots made a difference according to how McDonnell Douglas designed the airplane to be flown, and how the FAA decided to certify it. Note that I'm not terribly focused on total hydraulic system failures. It has undoubtedly happened on the 727, and others; however, we don't hear about them because of mechanical redundancy. What matters is control system failure: and if the loss of one hydraulic system or all hydraulic systems directly contribute to a crash, that failure mode is what has to be taken into account. In the case of AAL 191, the sole changes to be implemented were a re- evaluation of the use of forklifts to hoist engines, and the modification of takeoff speeds--not any dramatic re-implementation of the slat actuation mechanism. The latter may have been sufficient to avert further tragedies; we'll never know. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Johnson Subject: Re: Who's in Control Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Pacific Internet, Singapore Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:25 Message-ID: >From my experience,flying the SADDE 6 arrival,pilots generally dis-connect from the auto-flight regime around about the time we leave SMO VOR heading 070. I speak as a long haul operator of a two man crew aircraft. This of course varies from crew to crew. Factors such as weather,any non-normal aeroplane conditions, physical well being eg.fatigue, cockpit workload etc.would all contribute to the descision of when to hand fly. Our operations require that the aeroplane must successfully demonstrate a full autoland within every 28 days and as such we might need to let the autopilot have all the fun if the 28th day approaches. I'm sure that we would all like to hand fly as early in the descent as possible but in the interest of the safest operation this is not always the wisest action to take. From kls Mon Jun 10 12:22:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: real flight simulators Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of New South Wales Reply-To: tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au Date: 10 Jun 96 12:22:25 Message-ID: HARRISC wrote: > > does anyone know where i can get info on old flight simulators for a 707 > or dc8 or even older airliners if possible. i am interested in buying one. > will pay top$$$$ All Nippon Airlines (ANA) had an L1011 simulator for sale last year. Tony Maddern From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Mark A. Brown" Subject: Garuda DC-10 crash, Fukuoka Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:27 Message-ID: Hi, This will probably be old hat by the time I post because of the delay in my feed from the mailing list server. However, at 12:08 JST on 13th June, a Garuda DC-10 overran on landing at Fukuoka airport, Kyushu, Japan. The aircraft came to a rest over 100 metres from the end of the southwards-facing runway to the right of the centreline broke into two around the wing area and burned. The fuselage came to rest rotated to the left from the track it took when it left the runway. The last I heard there were 3 fatalities. >From the TV pictures and my sketchy understanding of a Japanese newsreader, the aircraft had trouble with the number 2 (centre, tail) engine. There was a hole visible on the right side of number 2 engine's duct. Whether this indicates an uncontained failure I can only guess. The engines were reported as General Electric CF6. Similarities with Sioux City? Mark. From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Mark A. Brown" Subject: Update Fukuoka Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:27 Message-ID: Hello again, Latest news from here. There was an uncontained failure of number three (starboard) engine which resulted in damage to the number two engine probably from ejected fragments. The crew coordination of the evacuation was very poor. The crew did not speak Japanese, or assist greatly in the evacuation. The crew was Indonesian, so made announcements about how to evacuate the aircraft in Indonesian and English, and then left the aircraft! TV pictures showed the hostesses standing in a group away from the fuselage while it burned. Mark. From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Garuda DC-10 crash, Fukuoka Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:27 Message-ID: >The engines were reported as General Electric CF6. Garuda had six DC-10s, all DC-10-30 models with CF6-50C engines. (I was tempted to say of course they were CF6 engines, forgetting for a moment that the DC-10-40 has JT9D engines!) >Similarities with Sioux City? The later reports that an uncontained failure of #3 caused the failure of #2 sounds more like the El Al 747-200F at Amsterdam in 1992 or the China Air 747-200F near Taipei the year before. In both of those, the separation of an inboard engine apparently (I'm not sure if official findings have been released in either case) took out the outboard engine on the same wing. Since certification requirements demand that an airliner be able to complete a takeoff with *one* engine out, I assume an engine (or pylon) failure on one engine is required not to cause the failure of a second engine. Based on the crash of AA 191 at Chicago in 1979, it appears that even with a compromised hydraulic system, total failure is not immediate. It seems like this crash happened even quicker than AA 191 so I'd guess hydraulic failure, a la Sioux City, did not have time to become a significant factor. -- 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 Sat Jun 15 13:43:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: onat@turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Onat Ahmet) Subject: DC-10 crash in Fukuoka Japan Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept. of Electr., Kyoto Univ., Japan Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:28 Message-ID: A DC-10 crashed at take off in Fukuoka Japan, yesterday at around 1200 JST. It belonged to Garuda Indonesia. It is reported that just prior to take off, everything seemed to be normal. eyewitneses say that the airplane accelerated and took off normally, but after gaining about 4-5 _meters_ of altitude, fire was seen in the No3 engine. The airplane then fell (stalled?) onto the end of the runway, overran it, dragged over the fields ahead, crossed a fence and a road, and came to a stop about 400 meters from the end of the runway, shedding No1 engine, undercarriage and other parts on the way. Fire broke out around the fuselage; near the wings. The middle fuselage was burned completely. The fuel in the tanks did not catch fire. There were 3 casualties, and 108 people wounded, out of more than 200 passengers. The flight data recorder was recovered without problems. Things to note about the wreckage are: * The flaps were at full deflection; as in landing configuration. * There is a big hole at the right side of the No2 engine. (which is otherwise intact) * The thrust reverser in No2 engine is deployed. * Rudder seems to be deflected all the way to the left. The authorities say that the most probable cause is an engine failure after take off (how a single engine failure can cause such an accident is beyond me...). Another person on TV said that, it could be a miscommunication between the pilots; one trying to continue take off, and the other trying an emergency landing at the same time (how can this happen; they must have practiced an engine-out take off many times?) According to news just aired on Japanese TV, it could be the *No1* engine that failed causing the plane to swerve to the left. Of course, the full flaps need to be explained, since the accident took place in only a few seconds- probably too short for the pilot to try to extend them. There were NO interwiews with the pilots (the airline would not want that probably). | Ahmet ONAT Kyoto Univ. Japan | | E-mail : onat@kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp | | WWW page : http://turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp/staff/onat.html | | My 6 leg walker, RC airplanes & more in home page | From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Snow Subject: Re: 767 Landing gear Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:28 Message-ID: I'm sure the old Boeing heads will correct me on this, but in a airliners photo book, I believe it said the B767 mains are slung forward because if they were slung aft, they wouldnt fit into the wheel well. This being before the days of CATIA, they were unable to determine the actual 'fit' of the mains in their wells. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie B727 Page Curator From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 767 Landing gear Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:28 Message-ID: In article , David Summergreene wrote: > Does anybody know why the B767 has the only foward slung main gear in > the boeing fleet, I was inetrested to see that the B777 did not follow > this trend. Anyone know why I'm not an engineer. However, from a class on airplane design I took here at Boeing a number of years ago I learned that the landing gear is one of the main criteria that "sets" an overall airplane design. In other words, they don't design the plane and then figure out how to put wheels on it, but instead start considering the gear right from the beginning. Because the gear attaches to the main wing spar, it has to be one of the first design components to be considered. While I do not know this for a fact, I suspect the angle of the 767's main gear struts was determined by the gear's retraction requirements which in turn were determined by the surrounding structure which in turn was determined by the wing to body postion which in turn was determined by.... you get the idea. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Kearney Subject: Re: 767 Landing gear Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Ireland On-Line Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:28 Message-ID: On 10 Jun 1996, David Summergreene wrote: > Does anybody know why the B767 has the only foward slung main gear in > the boeing fleet, I was inetrested to see that the B777 did not follow > this trend. Anyone know why Alledgedly .... The landing gear on the 767 must be a given length in order to keep the engines off the ground. If not there may be a slight techincal delay each time its lands somewhere ! This means that they have to be a certain distance apart at the wing-roots/wings in order to fit in when retracted..... This distance was too wide for (alledgedly) 1. the wings themselves 2. the taxiways at certain airports where the 767 was expected to call its home with certain airlines. Result: shorten the distance between the mount point in the wings to enable it to sit on a taxiway. By product: landing gear would then not "fit" when retracted if they were mounted straight. Cure: swing them slightly forward when retracting them. Regards to all Paul From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:28 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>Re-registering the aircraft did not strike me as being unusual.... >> It sounds like PR to me... > >Most members of the public can't even figure out which *type* of >aircraft they're on, never mind remembering registrations -- if they >even knew how to tell... >It does sound like PR, but it's pretty unusual just the same. I, of course, have no definitive information but I suspect that the original N number (N4713U) ending in 13 may have had something to do with renumbering it. We seem to be somewhat schizophrenic with regards to the number 13. We have nose numbers and N numbers ending in 13 and row number 13 on every airplane but no flight numbers ending in 13 or 13xx. Also, no gate 13 (or B13, etc.) at any airport of which I am aware. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:29 Message-ID: In article , ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) wrote: (describes Gimli Glider incident) > The damage was fairly superficial, and the airplane returned to service. > This does not compare with UAL 747, but it goes to show that > -airlines have a HUGE investment in each aircraft. > -airplanes are build in a fairly modular fashion...sections and > sub-sections can be replaced or repaired. > > YOU NEVER KNOW the history of the airplane you are on... The public tends to find it remarkable, if not scary, that a 747 that lost its cargo door and some surrounding structure is repaired and returned to service. It's easy to forget that that big, solid-looking jetliner is just a bunch of aluminum parts, wiring, tubing, etc. There were airplanes in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War which suffered damage that made what happened to the UAL 747 look like a fender ding, yet these airplanes were repaired, often under terrible working conditions, and returned to long and successful service lives. Our (Boeing) AOG teams have made remarkable repairs to airplanes in the field. Some of these projects, like the Air France 747 that slid off a runway in India, became almost a superhuman effort in light of the weather and health hazards faced by the AOG guys. Many of these repair jobs don't seem worth it, considering the amount and cost of the work that has to be done. In the case of the Air France plane, however, the airline determined it would take less time to have the plane repaired than it would take to obtain a replacement 747 from the factory. They felt the cost of the repair was less than the revenue that would be lost while they waited for a new plane. This may not be the case today, where there are a number of planes available for lease. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Hughes Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:29 Message-ID: In article , Larry Stone writes >In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >(Karl Swartz) wrote: > >>Sure. The damage was not all the severe, so why not? Many planes >>with far more serious damage have been repaired and returned to >>service. United did take the rather unusual sstep of re-registering >>it, from N4713U to N4724U. I've seen it at SFO and if I hadn't known >>the registration, it wouldn't have been any different from any other >>UAL 747-122. > >I've flown on it twice in the last 5 years. Once over the Atlantic in the >damage area. I figured it was probably the safest part of that plane. It >is scheduled for retirement by UA this September but as far as I can tell, >that it will be one of the earliest of the the 747-1xx retirements is just >because of when its overhaul (D-Check) is due, not its history. This a/c is cn 19875 and the 89th B747 from the line. Quite a number of the 1xx series aircraft have already been withdrawn and stored or broken up - at least 40 I can identify; to state that this is "one of the earliest retirements" is misleading. Quite a number of 200 series are already retired and broken up as well. That is not to say that 100 series B747s are not still in use but then the 601st a/c off the line was a 100 series, although by then many 200 series had been built. -- Pete Hughes From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:29 Message-ID: Larry Stone wrote: >>It is scheduled for retirement by UA this September but as far as I can tell, >>that it will be one of the earliest of the the 747-1xx retirements is just >>because of when its overhaul (D-Check) is due, not its history. Pete Hughes replied: >to state that this is "one of the earliest retirements" is misleading. He means it's one of the earliest retirements of UA's 747-100 fleet. UA had 18, sold five to Pan Am in the early 1980s, then bought five ex-AA 747-123s in the later 1980s. That fleet of 18 flew intact until last year, when the first was retired. N4724U will be amongst the next several to go, while at least one of the even older 747-123s will be almost the last of the 18 to be retired. -- 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 Sat Jun 15 13:43:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: graemec@ibm.net Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:29 Message-ID: Karl said: > Lots of other planes have become notorious >for one reason or another, but the only other one that resulted in a >registration change that I'm aware of was a TWA 707. I don't recall >exactly the story behind that one, but it was changed twice, because >the pilots found out about the first change. > >It does sound like PR, but it's pretty unusual just the same. There was another one in the 50s which I know of. A Britannia (100 series, I think) of BOAC was registered initially as G-ANBG but had its registration changed because of the number of jokes. 'NBG' was a common English colloquialism for 'no bloody good'. With the problems they were having with the Proteus at the time it was probably a bit too near the truth. At this distance, I don't recall what it was changed to. Graeme Cant. From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sasa3d@unx.sas.com (Ali Dogrusoz) Subject: Report out on B757 crash off Dominican Rep. ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SAS Institute Inc. Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:29 Message-ID: I just came accross this snippet from a Turkish news review. Has anyone seen the report they are reffering to. "According to a report by the US Department of Air Safety, the Turkish pilots flying a Boeing passenger plane on lease to the Turkish Birgenair air company which crashed into the sea with the loss of 189 lives, have been shown to be blameless. Instead, the report actually blames Boeing for failing to provide proper warning systems in the pilot's cabin and flight deck. The recent plane crash happened because the pilots were misinformed about flight conditions the report claims." -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ali Dogrusoz | SAS Institute Inc. | E-Mail: sasa3d@unx.sas.com | SAS Campus Dr | | Cary, NC 27513 | Phone : (919) 677-8000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Delta/American fleet composition Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:30 Message-ID: I've been doing a lot of flying this spring (for me, anyway- 15 round trips is a good bit) mostly on Delta. I'm curious about Delta's fleet composition and planning for the future. A few years back, I presumed that since they had purchased some MD-11's, they would begin phasing out L-1011's, but that certainly doesn't seem to have happened (a good thing IMHO). In fact, I only encountered about 3 Delta MD-11's on the ground at the various airports I've hit recently (DFW, Atlanta, Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, Cincinnati, Logan, National and a few others). Also, Delta is now acquiring MD-90's and I've flown them several times. I would guess that these planes will displace 727's over the next few years (a sad day- the 727 is my personal favorite of all airliners), and yet Delta seems to be using them on routes that formerly had MD-80's, and *not* on former 727 routes. What is Delta's actual fleet strategy for the next few years? Are they still buying 757's or not? What will they replace the L-1011's with, if not the MD-11? What about the Delta Shuttle 727's- are these still the ex-Trump planes, or did Delta mix them with their own fleet of 727's. What will become the aircraft of choice for the shuttle once the stage-2 727's are verboten? MD-80s? 737s (I don't think Delta owns enough post-200 series 737's to do this)? Any rumors of Delta planning to hushkit the shuttle 727's or other 727s? I also have similar curiosities about American's fleet plans, given the apparent unhappiness with their MD-11's and the fact that silver MD-90's are conspicuously absent at DFW. Will American begin to replace their sizeable and mostly early-production MD80 fleet with MD90s, or something else? If so, what? -- 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 Sat Jun 15 13:43:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com Subject: Trans-Pacific B777? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:30 Message-ID: According to Flight International, China Southern Airlines may become the first airline to use the B777 across the Pacific. It's reported that China Southern may lease two B777s from ILFC and inaugurate direct service between San Francisco and Guangzhou later this year. The flight will have to make a technical stop in Alaska with the current medium-range B777. Also, China Eastern has just started using the A340-300 on their Beijing/Shanghai-Los Angeles service. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: 73727.644@compuserve.com (Jeff Givens) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control/ hydraulic systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CompuServe Incorporated Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:30 Message-ID: On 10 Jun 96 12:22:25 rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: >>In the case of AAL 191, the sole changes to be implemented were a re- >>evaluation of the use of forklifts to hoist engines, and the modification >>of takeoff speeds--not any dramatic re-implementation of the slat actuation >>mechanism. The latter may have been sufficient to avert further tragedies; >>we'll never know. Wasn't something done along the lines of having a mechanical downlock installed to physically keep the slats in position with only positive hydraulic pressure able to "lift" them? _________________________________________________________________ JG...UKT(ABE/PHL) 73727.644@compuserve.com PP-ASEL incl. 4 hrs. B727! "I will not buy this record, it is scratched." From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control/ hydraulic systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:30 Message-ID: >>In the case of AAL 191, the sole changes to be implemented ... >Wasn't something done along the lines of having a mechanical downlock >installed to physically keep the slats in position with only positive >hydraulic pressure able to "lift" them? Discussed, but never added to the DC-10. American also requested and was willing to pay for a modification kit to move the hydraulics from the leading edge of the wing to a safer location, but MD refused to produce it. (The 747 and L-1011 had both mechanical slat locks and safer routing of the wing hydraulics from the very beginning.) -- 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 Sat Jun 15 13:43:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Tom Speer Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:30 Message-ID: John Liebson wrote: > ...I have to agree that, in general, jet aircraft are not > suitable for tanker use. Drops are made at very low altitudes and slow > speeds, for example, places such as deep into canyons, that I'm not at > all certain would be even safe in tanker terms for jet aircraft.... Another factor regarding props vs jets: on many fan engines, the thrust response to the throttle is so slow that you have to make an appointment to get more power. The immediate response of a prop is a definite asset for flying in rough terrain. TS From kls Sat Jun 15 13:43:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jveen@tincan.tincan.org (John van Veen) Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: < Organization: The Inland Northwest Community Access Network Reply-To: jveen@tincan.tincan.org (John van Veen) Date: 15 Jun 96 13:43:30 Message-ID: >However, this airport is really the exception: During the Hondo Fire, >the Taos, NM, airport was used, and it is quite small and unsuited for >most jet airplanes. > >We do use quite a few helicopters here, too: Both the Dome and Hondo >fires saw even Skycranes in use. > In our neck of the woods the PBY is the most often used water bomber. They are used on some relatively small fires at times. C-130's were rotated out of GEG a summer or two ago. They were being used on fires approximately 1 hour flying time away. GEG is Spokane WA by the way. The runways are longer than a C-130 would need. So a B-737 would be able to get a fire some distance away relatively fast, but once there it would need a fast guide plane and a very fast chemical delivery system. It is hard to imagine a 737 operating at the low speeds now used to deliver water/borate to fires. Just a feww thoughts... John From kls Sat Jun 15 18:26:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: Vince Horan Subject: Re: VR-BAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: B&CE Date: 15 Jun 96 18:26:09 Message-ID: In article , BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca writes > >Also, (re: British Airways DC10s) at LGW on the same day as above there >was a Caledonian DC10 G-GOKT. Is this a new a/c or just a re-registration G-GOKT is s/n 47838 ex RP-C2114. There is no such thing as a new DC-10! -- Vince Horan email: Horan@BandCE.demon.co.uk Gatwick Aviation Society http://www.totavia.com/hawkeye Old Airliners http://www.totavia.com/hawkeye/aviation.html From kls Sat Jun 15 18:26:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jop Vlaskamp Subject: Re: VR-BAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 15 Jun 96 18:26:09 Message-ID: >> Can anyone shed any light on the history of the 747-SP that is now registered >> VR-BAT? I saw it at the BA maintainance base at LHR last week. It appeared >> now to be some type of Middle-Eastern (Omani?) royal transport. A dutch magazine called Scramble (issue of febr. '96) mentioned this aircraft. Below my personal translation of it: "..[VR-BAT] used to be the N148UA (!), arrived at LHR from Singapore in "Qatar Royal Flight (Amiri)" colours, including tail logo, but no titles (....) VR-BAT is registered to WorldWide Aircraft Holding Company. Possibly this is only a temporary registration." The type is reported to be a B747SP-21 with c/n 21648. Daan Vlaskamp The Netherlands From kls Sat Jun 15 18:26:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: "Comp. Serv. Manager" Subject: Re: VR-BAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: UnipalmPIPEX server (post doesn't reflect views of UnipalmPIPEX) Date: 15 Jun 96 18:26:09 Message-ID: VR-BAT a Boeing 747SP-21 started life with United Airlines as N148UA. It was sold to First Security Bank of Utah on 9th October 1995 and subsequently to Worldwide Aircraft Holding Co. (Bermuda) Ltd. on 20th November 1995. It is dual based between Nice in France and Heathrow. It is maintained by British Airways at LHR. Graham Dash From kls Sat Jun 15 18:26:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: 777 Flight Deck Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 15 Jun 96 18:26:09 Message-ID: In a reply to an earlier posting by someone describing his experience as a visitor to a 777 cockpit, I made a couple of mistakes I'd like to rectify. The poster mentioned a trackball that was used as a cursor controller at the maintenance panel behind the first officer's seat. I replied that touchpads were used on the 777, not trackballs. I was wrong. Touchpads WERE installed for the MAT displays in the first flight test 777s. However, it apparently was decided that a trackball would be easier for a mechanic to manipulate, so the MAT touchpad was replaced by a trackball. The pilots cursor controllers are touchpads, however. I also stated that there was an additional MAT station in the E-bay under the forward cabin, plus five plug-in stations around the plane where portable maintenance access terminals could be plugged in. Actually, the MAT station in the E-bay is one of the five plug-in stations- we simply deliver a PMAT installed in this location with the airplane. My thanks to a fellow Boeing employee who pointed out my errors. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sat Jun 15 18:26:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@mallard.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: MD-11ER Larger Winglets? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 15 Jun 96 18:26:10 Message-ID: Hi all, I notice from the May 1996 issue of Air Transport World that World Airways has taken delivery of the 7200nm range MD-11ER. The photo that accompanies the news item shows what appears to be a larger winglet, but it could just be photographic distortion / foreshortening. Can anyone detail the differences between an MD-11 and MD-11ER in terms of structural, aerodynamic, or other physical changes? ed hahn -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Sat Jun 15 18:26:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dangrad@ix.netcom.com (Daniel J. Gradwohl) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 15 Jun 96 18:26:10 Message-ID: C. Marin Faure writes: >Our (Boeing) AOG teams have made remarkable repairs to airplanes in >the field. Some of these projects, like the Air France 747 that slid >off a runway in India Actually, the Air France 747 you speak of (a -400, F-GITA) ran off the end of the runway at PPT (Tahiti) on 9-12-93. It was brought out of the water (in an overrun beyond the runway) with the help of a Boeing team, using inflatable tubes which lifted the aircraft off the ground, and then cranes were used to haul it back onto the runway. The waterline was all the way up to the floor of the upper deck! Dan Gradwohl Ryan International Airlines B727 F/E IND From kls Sat Jun 15 18:26:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 15 Jun 96 18:26:10 Message-ID: >>Our (Boeing) AOG teams have made remarkable repairs to airplanes in >>the field. Some of these projects, like the Air France 747 that slid >>off a runway in India > Actually, the Air France 747 you speak of (a -400, F-GITA) ran off >the end of the runway at PPT (Tahiti) on 9-12-93. I suspect he knows of what he speaks (er, writes). It was a pretty impressive story, involving an Air France 747-200F during the 1980s or perhaps late 1970s. It took *months* to fix the sucker, partly because they had to replace the entire lower fuselage and partly due to the heat -- the tented the whole thing, but even at that could only work at night. Under other circumstances it would have been a complete loss, but at that time demand for 747 freighters was quite high and replacing the aircraft was virtually impossible. I believe this is distinct from a June 12, 1975 accident at Bombay involving a Air France 747-128 F-BPVJ, which according to the info I have was the victim of a fire. (If anyone can offer more info on either of these accidents I'd love to see it!) -- 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 Sat Jun 22 18:30:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JF@kjaer.dk Subject: Boeing 737-500 Light Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:35 Message-ID: Danisk Operator Maersk Air has introduced a Boeing 737-500 SP (5L9) s/n 28023, reg. OY-APA. The only difference from the non SP should be the lower max to. weight,- on this it is 112.300 lbs (50938 kg). Maersk has ordered 6 of this SP, for replacement of their Fokker 50 on the routes from Billund in Denmark to London, Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam. Has anyone any further details on these planes,- are there other differences than MTOW, and are other Airliners using this special edition of the 737-500? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jorgen Frausing, Denmark e-mail JF@KJAER.DK From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Messina Subject: Re: DC10/MD11 engine #2 redundant? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:35 Message-ID: On 10 Jun 1996 Thomas@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote: > I have a question regarding the tail engine of a DC10/MD11. > > I've heard a rumour that the tail engine (#2) is mainly used during > takeoff in order for the aircraft to take a larger payload > at takeoff compared to a two engined widebody. En route #2 is > throttled back to a minimum level leaving #1 and #3 running at > full throttle. I have never even heard of such a thing! > #2 was also supposed to point in an angle slightly more > towards the ground in order to support takeoff with large payloads. Never heard that expressed either. The engine appears to be angled as you describe and simple vector analysis would suggest there is some small component of "lift". One engine has approximately 50,000# of thrust at takeoff. Probably doesn't amount to much, IMHO. One thing the angled #2 engine probably does do, is oppose somewhat the destabilizing effects of power changes on the wing engines. One can hand-fly the airplane very nicely with the Autothrottles on. Running the Autothrottles on while hand-flying an airplane such as the Boeing 737 -300 with it's powerful under-wing engines can be a struggle. Bluecoat Digest mail list maintainer- Jim Messina http://www.neosoft.com/~sky (Bluecoat Web links) From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdijken@worldaccess.nl (Jannes van Dijken) Subject: Re: DC10/MD11 engine #2 redundant? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:35 Message-ID: On 10-06-96 14:22, in message , Thomas Enblom had a question about the #2 engine on the DC10/MD11: It's a good rumour, but that's all it is. The #2 engine is enroute being used the same way as #1 and #3. It will fly fine on 1 and 3, only but the fuel useage will go up. That should answer your question. From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:36 Message-ID: Tom Speer writes: >Another factor regarding props vs jets: on many fan engines, the >thrust response to the throttle is so slow that you have to make an >appointment to get more power. The immediate response of a prop is a >definite asset for flying in rough terrain. And as I recall, the C130 goes one better. There is no throttle. A "power" control alters the pitch; a governer keeps the RPM constant. The advantage is the the engines does not have to "spin up" at all...it's always at a given RPM. -- 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 Sat Jun 22 18:30:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:36 Message-ID: >And as I recall, the C130 goes one better. There is no throttle. >A "power" control alters the pitch; a governer keeps the RPM >constant. The L-188 Electra works the same way, which should come as little surprise since they use essentially the same engines and props (excluding the new C-130J), albeit with the engines inverted. -- 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 Sat Jun 22 18:30:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jim Messina Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:36 Message-ID: On 15 Jun 1996, Tom Speer wrote: > Another factor regarding props vs jets: on many fan engines, the thrust > response to the throttle is so slow that you have to make an appointment > to get more power. The immediate response of a prop is a definite asset > for flying in rough terrain. This is what was always said about pure turbjet engines(blowtorch, no bypass air). High-bypass fans (80% prop air/20% blowtorch) are a tad sluggish coming off idle, but you aren't there that much in high-lift/high-drag landing configurations. You are, as they say, spooled up: there, the engines respond nearly as well as any propeller airplane. Off of idle, perhaps 5 seconds of anticipation to get to a rapid response range circa 40% N1 on a CFM56 on a B-737-300. Multi-bladed, fixed-pitch, ducted-prop turbine. Qualitatively, high-bypass fan engines feel little different than a PW PT-6 turboprop as one might find on a King Air. Bluecoat Digest mail list maintainer- Jim Messina http://www.neosoft.com/~sky (Bluecoat Web links) From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:36 Message-ID: Tom Speer wrote: >John Liebson wrote: >> ...I have to agree that, in general, jet aircraft are not >> suitable for tanker use. Drops are made at very low altitudes and slow >> speeds, for example, places such as deep into canyons, that I'm not at >> all certain would be even safe in tanker terms for jet aircraft.... > >Another factor regarding props vs jets: on many fan engines, the thrust >response to the throttle is so slow that you have to make an appointment >to get more power. The immediate response of a prop is a definite asset >for flying in rough terrain. > In general, I agree that its much easier to see A-26 Invaders bombing fires than it is to see a 737 (and much more nostalgic, also :-) However, a couple of arguments in favor of a 737 spring to mind: Its been said that they fly too fast. Why couldn't the drops be conducted with nearly full flaps, much like a landing configuration? That should allow a 737 to make a rather leisurely approach to a fire, although burning a lot of fuel in the process. As for the spool-up time, remember that 737-200s have small-fan JT8Ds instead of CFM-56s like later 737s. The JT8D has a pretty quick throttle response for a turbofan, although not as quick as an A-26's Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radials :-) On the other hand, sometimes R-2800s choose to respond to rapid throttle inputs by backfiring mightily.... -- 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 Sat Jun 22 18:30:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: lous@sr.hp.com (Lou Salz) Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Hewlett Packard Sonoma County Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:36 Message-ID: : John Liebson wrote: : Another factor regarding props vs jets: on many fan engines, the thrust : response to the throttle is so slow that you have to make an appointment : to get more power. This spool up delay on jets has been mentioned before in other discussions and I'd like a little clarification. Is the time delay caused by the turbine engine or is the prop itself the reason for the fast response? If it's the engine that causes the delay, wouldn't turbo props have the same problem? Turbo prop planes such as the C130 are often used as air tankers here in northern California by the California Department of Forestry. Like some other readers, I'm having a little trouble picturing a 737 as an air tanker. I guess it might make more sense in a place like British Columbia where population densities are lower. Maybe here in California, the population density is high enough and airports numerous enough to base aircraft at locations where response time is more a function of taxi and takeoff time than in route flying time. Lou Salz lous@sr.hp.com From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Burkhard Domke Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: TU Berlin Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:37 Message-ID: ...some factors making turbine powerplants (either turbojet/fan or turboshaft) more or less unsuitable for aerial firefighting: - turbine power output drops significantly with increasing ambient temperature. Ambient temperature tends to increase considerably in the vicinity of a large-scale forest blaze. - turbine powerplants are prone to erosion and corrosion. A standard fire will throw up plenty of smoke, dust and ashes. These not only tend to erode blades and vanes, but additionally corrode the hot section (turbine) when combining into acids with ambient humidity. - spool-up times make turbine engines less responsive than piston engines. Manuevrability and throttle response seems to be essential in firefighting over non-flat terrain. - the speed advantage of turbine-powered aircraft would show up only with firefighting in the most remote locations, with no airfield/water within several hundred miles of range from the fire. - unprepared strips at remote locations are served best by aircraft with good STOL or even VTOL capabilites, which rarely are attributable to jet aircraft. - the gusts created by "thermal activities" (let alone hilly terrain) will give firefighters quite a rough ride, which in the long term can be sustained only by the most sturdy airframes. This is why many WW2 veteran a/c like TBMs and PB-1s (B-17) found their way into the aerial firefighting business. Burkhard Domke Lecturer in Aircraft Design Berlin Technical University, Germany domk1031@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: jimc@internorth.com (Jim Cameron) Subject: Re: 737-200 water bomber! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NWT air Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:37 Message-ID: siller@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Paul Siller) wrote: >Don Stokes wrote: >>dave@amiwest.com writes: >>> While the idea of a 737 waterbomber might sound outrageous at >>>first, it is really inevitable. There is a strong push to reduce the >>>time it takes to get from base to a fire, while carrying a large >>>retardant load, so over the years, ever faster and bigger aircraft have >>>been used. Using a 737 is a natural extension of this evolution. I am >>>working on this project and find it to be quite sensible. Fuel consumption while low and slow will be horrendous on a 737. Spool up time is also a factor for geting out of those tight canyons. The succesfull bidder of the contract for our part of the country uses DC-4's and Canso's.. Manager Dispatch NWT air Yellowknife, NWT CANADA From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tiffany.tyler@man.ac.uk (Tiffany Tyler) Subject: Continental 747s? Why? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PREST- University of Manchester Reply-To: Tiffany.Tyler@man.ac.uk Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:37 Message-ID: I see from Continental's January fleet summary that they are still flying 2 747s. Given that they have gotten rid of the A300s and seem to be reducing capacity overall, what are these 2 still doing around? Anyone know what routes they are flying ? Couldn't these also be served by DC-10s? Or is it just a question of keeping the 747s until they can acquire used DC-10s to replace them? Spares and mainenance on only 2 747s must be killing them. What's the story? From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: LYMU76A@prodigy.com (Pradip Sagdeo) Subject: Re: Jet Engines above the wing: why not used? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:37 Message-ID: The answer to your questions lies in many of the buzz words in the industry today: I will give some of the most important ones that come to my mind. I am sure you can infer the reasons: Aerodyanmics, Structures, Stability and Control, Manufacturability, Accessibility, Repairability, Maintainability, Aesthetics. The low wing will not do it. Pradip Sagdeo From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: SIA A340s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:37 Message-ID: In article , Bong wrote: >I just finnished reading airbus' press release. In one of their article, >AI wrote that SIA(singapore airlines) will use its A340's in SIA's >singapore-paris route. i remember that SIA cancelled its MD-11 orders >becuase SIA wanted an aircarft to carry a 60000 lbs. in this route, but >during actual test flight showed that a MD-11 can only carry 40000 lbs. SIA did not "order" the MD-11; SIA signed an Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to buy up to 20 MD-11s in 1990, I think. When McD and P&W could not guarantee year-round, non-stop operation between S'pore and Paris without payload penalty by assuming 5% (?) engine degradation, SIA chose the high gross weight A340-300X (now designated as the A340-300E) in 1991. >Now, A340-300 has a range of 7300 nm, and paris-sing. is roughly 6600 nm. >I think It would not be possible for the A340 to fly non-stop because of >the strong headwinds. Can someone tell me if I am wrong? > The A340-300E is originally certified at 271 tons of gross weight. According to an earlier report in AvLeak, SIA claimed the aircraft only had a range of around 6600 nm in SIA's configuration. Airbus was supposed to have the aircraft recertified at 275 tons either last month or this month (by adding a tank?). I believe SIA will start flying the A340 on the S'pore-Paris run in October. Let's see how it will perform. From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: delta LA-Hong Kong flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:38 Message-ID: In article , Bong wrote: >What happend to delta's la-hong kong flight? They dropped it in December of last year, along with Taipei and Bangkok. >Did dl abandoned it because >of the range problem with their md-11's? Also, I once read an article in >AW&T that Dl will make a stop in taiwan for refuel. I believe poor yield (i.e., not making money) on the route was the most important reason. A Singapore Airlines pilot told me that some of their SFO-HKG B747-400 flights had to make an unschedule stop in Taiwan. So, I don't think DL's unscheduled refueling stop on their LAX-HKG runs was not "unique." >Is is the distance of >la-taiwan and la-hong kong simmilar? > You have to fly through Taiwan to go to HKG; it's about 500 miles shorter to Taipei than to HKG. From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: delta LA-Hong Kong flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of New South Wales Reply-To: tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:38 Message-ID: Bong wrote: > > What happend to delta's la-hong kong flight? Did dl abandoned it because > of the range problem with their md-11's? Also, I once read an article in > AW&T that Dl will make a stop in taiwan for refuel. Is is the distance of > la-taiwan and la-hong kong simmilar? The LA-HKG route goes overhead Taipei which is an hour before HKG. Unforecast headwinds or ATC restrictions on altitude can cause extra fuel to be burnt off so it is not unusual for LA-HKG traffic to make a technical stop in Taipei for fuel ( I have done it myself). Winter is the worst time because the jet-stream lies across the airway. Rgds, Tony Maddern From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: delta LA-Hong Kong flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:38 Message-ID: On 10 Jun 1996, Bong wrote: > What happend to delta's la-hong kong flight? Did dl abandoned it because > of the range problem with their md-11's? Also, I once read an article in > AW&T that Dl will make a stop in taiwan for refuel. Is is the distance of > la-taiwan and la-hong kong simmilar? I was told point blank by a Delta MD-11 captain that the MD-11 is the sole reason DL stopped flying to HKG. The airplane was simply making too many unscheduled stops in Tokyo for fuel, and DL had to stop the bleeding. The same captain told me that as soon as the front office at DL gets off the mark and orders 777s, the MD-11s will probably soon be history, or at least relegated to trans-Atlantic routes. JRH From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lawlee@ms1.hinet.net (Lawrence Lee) Subject: Re: delta LA-Hong Kong flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: DCI HiNet Reply-To: lawlee@ms1.hinet.net Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:38 Message-ID: Bong wrote: >What happend to delta's la-hong kong flight? Did dl abandoned it because >of the range problem with their md-11's? Also, I once read an article in >AW&T that Dl will make a stop in taiwan for refuel. Is is the distance of >la-taiwan and la-hong kong simmilar? No. DL has abandoned LAX-TPE,LAX-HKG flight rout due to lower benifit. And it take about 70 minutes fly from TPE to HKG. A MD-11 does not care this short range. From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dfwmech" Subject: Re: delta LA-Hong Kong flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:38 Message-ID: Delta dropped la-hong kong service due to lack of revenue. They (Delta) was making money on the route, but due to the lack of transoceanic aircraft, they moved the md-11 to a more profitable route. The md-11 do have a range problem. I believe Delta had some center tanks installed in the md-11, which in turn took up cargo space. Less cargo space, less revenue per flight. As for as the question about making a stop in taiwan for fuel, I couldn't tell you an answer. I didnt know Delta went to Taiwan. -- Dfwmech@concentric.net A&P at DFW Views expressed are mine alone From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Ground Proximity Alert Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:39 Message-ID: There is a nice article about the new enhanced ground proximity warning system on the front page of Wednesday's Wall Street Journal. It seems like a very good system. The only negative comment they had was someone's worry that pilots would find the color moving map display so interesting that they would neglect their instruments. If that's a problem, perhaps we should put curtains over the cockpit windows in VFR conditions. Monetary value of comments V=2.0 x 10(e-2) dollars (U.S.) Peter Wezeman From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: A little humour Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:39 Message-ID: Darwin Award Last year's Darwin Award was given to a man crushed to death by a Coke machine from which he was attempting to yank a free soda. ( The Darwins go to the people who do the gene pool the biggest favor by killing themselves in an extraordinary and stupid way). Front runner this year: Mystery owner of a jet-propelled Chevy Impala. The Arizona Highway Patrol came upon a pile of smoldering metal embedded in the side of a cliff rising above the road at the crest of a curve. Wreckage resembled that at an airplane crash, but it was a car--make and model unidentifiable at the scene. A lab figured out the story. It seems the driver had somehow gotten hold of a JATO unit (Jet Assisted Take Off--actually a solid fuel rocket) that's used to give heavy military transport planes an extra "push" taking off from short airfields. He drove his Chevy Impala out into the desert and found a long, straight stretch of road. Then he attached the JATO unit to his car, jumped in, got up some speed and fired off the jet device. The cops calculate that the driver of the car...hit JATO ignition at a distance of about 3 miles from the crash site. Ashphalt was scorched and melted there. Reaching maximum thrust within 5 seconds, causing the Chevy to reach speeds well in excess of 350 mph and continuing at full power for an additional 20-25 seconds, the driver, soon to be pilot, most likely would have experienced G-forces usually reserved for dog fighting F-14 jocks under full afterburners, basically causing him to become insignificant for the rest of the event. Remained on the highway for about 2.5 miles (15-20 seconds) before the driver applied and completely melted the brakes, blowing the tires and leaving thick rubber marks on the road surface. Became airborne for an additional 1.4 miles, impacting the cliff face at a height of 125 feet and leaving a black crater three feet deep in the rock. Most of the driver's remains were not recoverable; however, small fragments of bone, teeth and hair were extracted from the crater and fingernail shards were removed from a piece of debris believed to be a portion of the steering wheel. From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: onat@turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Onat Ahmet) Subject: Re: Update Fukuoka Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Dept. of Electr., Kyoto Univ., Japan Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:39 Message-ID: In mark@optima.nal.go.jp's opinion; : Hello again, : : Latest news from here. : : There was an uncontained failure of number three (starboard) engine which : resulted in damage to the number two engine probably from ejected fragments. : According to reports, the hole in No2 engine's cowling is not thought to be related to the accident. The broken landing gear seems to have crashed into the engine cowling and caused the damage. This engine is believed to have functioned properly. There was no internal damage to the engine itself; only the intake duct. (BTW, it was the first time I saw a man near the tail engine so that I could compare the size. It was BIG!) The reason for the crash is currently thought to be failure of the No3 engine due to fire, and pilot error in handling that... | Ahmet ONAT Kyoto Univ. Japan | | E-mail : onat@kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp | | WWW page : http://turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp/staff/onat.html | | My 6 leg walker, RC airplanes & more in home page | From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:39 Message-ID: In article , dangrad@ix.netcom.com (Daniel J. Gradwohl) wrote: > C. Marin Faure writes: > > > >Our (Boeing) AOG teams have made remarkable repairs to airplanes in > >the field. Some of these projects, like the Air France 747 that slid > >off a runway in India > > Actually, the Air France 747 you speak of (a -400, F-GITA) ran off > the end of the runway at PPT (Tahiti) on 9-12-93. It was brought out > of the water (in an overrun beyond the runway) with the help of a > Boeing team, using inflatable tubes which lifted the aircraft off the > ground, and then cranes were used to haul it back onto the runway. The > waterline was all the way up to the floor of the upper deck! I remember the Tahiti incident, although I don't know any of the details about the repair. But I'm almost positive the India repair I was talking about was an Air France plane, as well. It's been a number of years, back in the late 1980s, and I frankly can't remember what happened to the plane. It went off the end of the runway, but I don't know if they overshot the landing or tried to abort a takeoff. Maybe someone else in this group remembers the details more accurately. I know the plane was a mess, with engines ripped off and so on. One of our video producers made a show using footage that was shot by members of the AOG team, inlcuding putting up the big tent that covered the plane, offloading the drinking water and food Boeing flew in for the crew, etc., and I'm sure I remember it being an Air France plane. I know I made the comment as I watched part of the video in the control room that the repair effort didn't seem worth it. The producer then told me the bit about how it would have taken longer to obtain a replacement plane than fix the broken one, and the airline didn't want to lose the revenue. I could be wrong about the airline being Air France, though. It wouldn't be the first time... C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:40 Message-ID: In article , Pete Hughes wrote: >In article , Larry Stone > writes >>I've flown on it twice in the last 5 years. Once over the Atlantic in the >>damage area. I figured it was probably the safest part of that plane. It >>is scheduled for retirement by UA this September but as far as I can tell, >>that it will be one of the earliest of the the 747-1xx retirements is just >>because of when its overhaul (D-Check) is due, not its history. > >This a/c is cn 19875 and the 89th B747 from the line. Quite a number of >the 1xx series aircraft have already been withdrawn and stored or broken >up - at least 40 I can identify; to state that this is "one of the >earliest retirements" is misleading. Quite a number of 200 series are >already retired and broken up as well. I meant one of the earliest of the current fleet of 18 that UA operates (already reduced to 17 by one retirement). -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Hughes Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:40 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz writes >Larry Stone wrote: >>>It is scheduled for retirement by UA this September but as far as I can tell, >>>that it will be one of the earliest of the the 747-1xx retirements is just >>>because of when its overhaul (D-Check) is due, not its history. > >Pete Hughes replied: >>to state that this is "one of the earliest retirements" is misleading. > >He means it's one of the earliest retirements of UA's 747-100 fleet. >UA had 18, sold five to Pan Am in the early 1980s, then bought five >ex-AA 747-123s in the later 1980s. That fleet of 18 flew intact until >last year, when the first was retired. N4724U will be amongst the >next several to go, while at least one of the even older 747-123s will >be almost the last of the 18 to be retired. > > My apologies to Larry (who has also written to me directly) - I read the -1xx absolutely literally as referring to ALL -1xx series 747s, rather than putting it in the UAL context of the posting! My original figures on the wider 747-1xx fleet stand. -- Pete Hughes From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: Emile Okal Subject: Re: VR-BAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NU Geological Sci. Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:40 Message-ID: Comp. Serv. Manager wrote: > > VR-BAT a Boeing 747SP-21 started life with United Airlines as N148UA. I doubt it started life with UA. I think UA's SPs were bought from PA. Also, the -21 suffix would not point to UA. UA's suffix are, I believe -22. Emile Okal From kls Sat Jun 22 18:30:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: VR-BAT Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:40 Message-ID: >> VR-BAT a Boeing 747SP-21 started life with United Airlines as N148UA. >I doubt it started life with UA. I think UA's SPs were bought from PA. Correct. N148UA started life with Pan Am and was amongst ten such planes that went to UA in 1986. At the same time, UA also acquired an original Braniff 747SP from Pan Am. >Also, the -21 suffix would not point to UA. UA's suffix are, I believe -22. Right, UA is 22. 21 is Pan Am. 27 was Braniff's Boeing customer code so the one which started life at Braniff before moving on to Pan Am and then UA was a 747SP-27. -- 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 Sat Jun 22 18:30:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: DC-9 Flight Control/ hydraulic systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 22 Jun 96 18:30:40 Message-ID: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>>In the case of AAL 191, the sole changes to be implemented ... > >>Wasn't something done along the lines of having a mechanical downlock >>installed to physically keep the slats in position with only positive >>hydraulic pressure able to "lift" them? > >Discussed, but never added to the DC-10. American also requested and >was willing to pay for a modification kit to move the hydraulics from >the leading edge of the wing to a safer location, but MD refused to >produce it. (The 747 and L-1011 had both mechanical slat locks and >safer routing of the wing hydraulics from the very beginning.) And in any case, the important thing to remember is that it was just a few knots which meant the difference between safe flight and stalling out. The failure mode only became significant because the emergency engine-out procedures did not take into account the possibility of inadvertent slat retraction, which, compounded by the lack of warning mechanisms, reflected poorly on both the FAA regulatory requirements and how Douglas chose to implement them. So, if airlines are faced with the option of a multi-million-dollar hardware upgrade, or simply resetting reference speeds to be a few knots faster and accepting takeoff penalties, they're going to go with the latter. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cchris@hkstar.com Subject: First B777 Accident in HKG Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong Star Internet LTD. Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:01 Message-ID: Dear everybody in sci.aeronautics.airliners, The first B777 accident happened this afternoon (HKG time) at about 1420 in Hongkong International Airport. A Cathay Pacific B777-200 aircraft, registered as VR-HND, was due to arrive Hongkong from Bangkok. Flight No. CX706 was about to land at about 1420 (HKG time). After it had touched down, the pilot found out that the Fire Alarm Alert System of the Forward Frieght is ON. Pilot then asked all the passengers to leave the cabin immediately. A number of passengers were injured when they escaped out of the aircraft. After inspection by the Fire Services of Hongkong, it is believed that there is no fire occured in the cargo. It is believed that this accident was only due to the over-sensitive of the Alarm Alert System. This was the first B777 accident. The CX spokesman said that it may due to the high humidty of the cargo, which are mostly fresh vegatables and fruits from Thailand. A number of flights were delayed due to the accident. The aircraft was then towed to the nearby bay in order to let the airport continue its operation. For more detailed report on this accident, please check again tomorrow or visit my site tomorrow on http://www.hkstar.com/~cchris/ Christopher from HKG From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jac@panix.com (John Clear) Subject: Re: A little humour Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Panix Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:02 Message-ID: In article , Alan Browne wrote: >Front runner this year: > > Mystery owner of a jet-propelled Chevy Impala. The Arizona Highway > Patrol came upon a pile of smoldering metal embedded in the side of a > cliff rising above the road at the crest of a curve. Wreckage > resembled that at an airplane crash, but it was a car--make and model > unidentifiable at the scene. Cute story, but the folks over in alt.folklure.urban will tell you it is just an urban legend. I know it has been on the "Stupid Hall of Fame" web page for at least a year, probably more (http://www.panix.com/~clay/stupid/ it also has the guy in the lawn chair with weather ballons....) John -- John Clear - jac@panix.com PP-ASEL 1Lt, CAP-NYW http://www.panix.com/~jac "They're all lawyers, and think that the laws of physics can be amended with a voice vote." -- Mary Shafer (shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com) on Politicians From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Your Organization Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:02 Message-ID: > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the >FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. >I know it fits the Cat. just by using its weight, but if I'm not >mistaken that was not the reason behind the ruling. I believe it was because of some incidences of wake turbulence experienced by various aircraft following it. The wing tip vortices it produces are similar to that produced by larger, heavier, or heavy (greater than 300,000 gross weight) aircraft. From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dfwmech" Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:02 Message-ID: This is second hand information, so anyone else feel free to correct me. I have heard it is because of the large amount of wing vortex turbalance the 757 creates during takeoff and landing. It was also my understanding that the 757 did not meet the weight requirements for Heavy Jet. Again this is second hand, but when the 757 was followed by a smaller plane, sometimes the vortex turbalance was severe enough that some pilots have lost control of their plane. My pilot friend did not say if they crashed or not. But due to the many complaints the FAA recieved on the turbalance of the 757, they upgrade the class to heavy jet. -- Dfwmech@concentric.net A&P at DFW Views expressed are mine alone From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pandy@tcp.co.uk (Andrew Cameron) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Total Connectivity Providers - Internet access for the UK Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:03 Message-ID: Mooney1@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the >FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. >I know it fits the Cat. just by using its weight, but if I'm not >mistaken that was not the reason behind the ruling. Wake turbulence was significant enough that following some incidents the FAA changed the classification. I believe that the CAA in the UK had made this change in advance of the FAA. From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Snow Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:03 Message-ID: On 10 Jun 1996 Mooney1@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the > FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. > I know it fits the Cat. just by using its weight, but if I'm not Unless I was mistaken, the heavy moniker comes into play at gross weights over 300,000 lbs. Even the B757-200ER ETOPS aircraft do not weight this much. The highest max takeoff gross I have seen for a B757 is around 255,000 for a ETOPS B757 of ATA. Granted, it does have the wake turbulence of a heavy, in that the wing is almost exactly like the B767s wing, which IS a heavy jet. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie B757 Page Curator From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jpstrain@netcom.com (Jim Strain) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:03 Message-ID: In article , Mooney1@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the > FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. > I know it fits the Cat. just by using its weight, but if I'm not > mistaken that was not the reason behind the ruling. > Thank you ...... Mooney1 I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was because of the severity of its wake turbulence. There was a crash of a light plane a year or two ago on the approach to John Wayne/Orange County, California, in which 757 wake turbulence was a prime suspect as to proximate cause. . . . jim strain in san diego. From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:03 Message-ID: In article , Mooney1@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the > FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. > I know it fits the Cat. just by using its weight, but if I'm not > mistaken that was not the reason behind the ruling. > Thank you ...... Mooney1 I believe its category was changed because of its wingspan and wingtip vortex characteristics. The 757, like the 767, was given very long wings to maximize its efficiency. These wings can generate fairly strong tip vortices (sp?). However, the 757's lower weight plus the fact that everyone thought of it simply as a 727 "replacement" suggested it could be in a lower category, which meant the spacing between it and a following plane could be less than the spacing between a heavy jet and the plane behind. After a few well-publicized incidents in which the media managed to give the 757 wing a bad rep (it's actually an excellent wing, and the 757 still has the lowest seat-mile cost of any commercial jetliner), the FAA simply moved the 757 into the higher category, which was more accurate as far as its wing characteristics are concerned anyway, thus increasing the spacing between the 757 and a following airplane. End of wake vortex incidents. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gsmoff@Mcs.Net (Gary S. Moffitt) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MCSNet Internet Services Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:04 Message-ID: > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the > FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. The term "heavy jet" is not strictly defined by wieght, is is a generic term used to define wide bodies in general, which the 757 is not. However, it has been determined that the 757 produces extreme wake turbulence that is more like the wake turbulence from a wide body than a narrow body. Therefore the FAA has called the 757 a heavy jet so that controllers will maintain a greater degree of separation between the 757 and other aircraft and to warn other smaller and general aviation aircraft operating in its vicinity of wake turbulence danger. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@barder.Princeton.EDU (Pablo Wangermann) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Laboratory for Control and Automation Princeton University Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:04 Message-ID: In article , wrote: > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the >FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. >I know it fits the Cat. just by using its weight, but if I'm not >mistaken that was not the reason behind the ruling. >Thank you ...... Mooney1 > Operational experience and some experiments have shown that while the wake vortices of 757s are not unusually strong, they have a very tight core that is very persistent, and have casued problems for trailing aircraft. By classifying it as a heavy, controllers have to keep trailing aircraft further from the 757s. John Wangermann From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:04 Message-ID: In article , wrote: > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the >FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. >I know it fits the Cat. just by using its weight, but if I'm not >mistaken that was not the reason behind the ruling. Unless the FAA reconsidered an earlier decision, the 757 is not a heavy. The FAA considered moving the B-757-200 into the heavy category, due to unusually long lasting wake vorticies, but later decided not to do so. The 757-200 is not heavy enough to be a heavy by weight, which requires a maximum gross takeoff weight in excess of 300,000 pounds. -- 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 Mon Jun 24 00:42:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: d.jensen@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CSIRO Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:05 Message-ID: In article , Mooney1@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the >FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. >I know it fits the Cat. just by using its weight, but if I'm not >mistaken that was not the reason behind the ruling. >Thank you ...... Mooney1 > It had to do with the 757 having far greater wake turbulence than would be expected just using the weight. To the best of my knowledge, this phenomenon is as yet unexplained. Dennis From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jacob@anafor.berkeley.edu (JD Jacob) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: UC Berkeley Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:05 Message-ID: In article , wrote: > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the >FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. >I know it fits the Cat. just by using its weight, but if I'm not >mistaken that was not the reason behind the ruling. >Thank you ...... Mooney1 > Due to the strength of its vortex wake. Before the advent of the jumbos (747 and the like) there were only two categories, small and large, generally split into general aviation and airliners, respectively. The 757 is a borderline plane, falling into the large category just barely, IIRC. It has a high wing loading and strong wake, however, and since the category sets the separation distance between leading and following aircraft, it was bumped up after a few incidents. Jamey --------------------------------------------------------------------------- J.D. Jacob Post-Doctoral Fellow, UCB-FML 140 Hesse Hall, Dept. of Mechanical Eng., U.C. Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720 jdjacob@euler.berkeley.edu "Nam et ipsa scienta http://www.me.berkeley.edu/~jdjacob/ potestas est." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety,sci.engr,comp.software-eng,comp.software.testing Path: bounce-back From: Tom Speer Subject: Re: N-version software compared to others Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:05 Message-ID: Charles Radley wrote: > ...It is less effective than some techniques, more effective than > others. It can be accomplished more easily than Formal Methods, but > is probably less effective.... I missed the beginning of this thread, and with responses from the likes of Prof Littlewood, you've got it from the authority. But here's a yeoman practioner's experience: The STOL/Maneuver Demonstrator (an F-15B modified with canards, 2D vectoring/reversing nozzles, and an integrated flight/propulsion control system) was the first aircraft in the US to fly without a dissimilar backup system (the British FBW Jaguar preceeded it). The aircraft is now at NASA Dryden as the ACTIVE F-15. I worked in the SMTD program office, and was responsible for overseeing the development of the IFPC hardware and software. Naturally, we were concerned about the generic software fault problem, since the software was flight critical and common to all 4 channels. I looked into the pro's and con's of N-version programming, and ran accross some interesting studies. The one that impressed me the most was one in which a couple of universities teamed up to provide something like 16 independent programmer teams to code software from a common spec. I believe the problem given them had to do with SDI decoy discrimination. From these teams' products, many triplex combinations were formed and tested against a "golden" version produced by the instructors. The triplex versions were more reliable than single versions. However, they also found that the triplex voting did _not_ preclude common software errors and that the software errors were statistically correlated. The reason for this striking finding is that all versions were coded from common requirements (naturally). Where the requirements specification is ambiguous or hard to understand, it's difficult for everyone. Plus, programmers tend to have similar backgrounds, and so if one person has misconceptions, then many people can share the same. So people tend to make many of the same mistakes. So, if you have to convince a certification authority that there is no possiblilty of a software fault, then formal methods are your only hope. You can't rule it out with N-version programming. That being said, there's a tradeoff between reliability and availablilty. For example, a secondary control system like for flaps or slats, has to have high reliability but it may not be as stringent in availability. It may be highly important that faults be detected so as to avoid the possibility of asymmetric deployment or retraction. But it may be acceptable to have more false alarms which result in the flaps being frozen in position because the aircraft can still be landed safely whether they are up or down. For such an application, N-version programming may be appropriate because there may be a greater chance of an error in one or the other channel, but the chance of a common error is acceptably low. Just as twin engines have twice the chances of engine failure but a much lower chance of total thrust loss, compared to single engine aircraft. The primary control system of a fly-by-wire aircraft must have high availability because the "fail safe" state is only marginally more acceptable than the failure state. In this application, it may be more desireable to slant the risk toward the undetected failure than to have false alarms. So single version software may be the way to go. The consequences of failure also mean that considerable resources can be devoted to the development of this version in order to reduce the chance that such an undetected failure exists, so formal methods are appropriate. On the STOL/MTD, we used an autocode generator to create the control law code directly from graphical input of the block diagrams. The autocode generator used a library of thoroughly validated routines which corresponded to the diagram blocks. By eliminating human involvement as much as possible in the coding, we were taking a step in the direction of formal methods, although I can't claim anything like formal methods were used. So far as I know, this was the first time autocoded software was used in a primary flight control system. Autocode generators have become pretty much a part of routine control system synthesis, as much for their convenience as because of the increased reliability. They can now produce code which is comparable in speed and memory to hand coding, so there is little reason not to use them. I believe it's possible that formal methods could be developed to the point where they actually speed up the development process and can be justified as much on the basis of reducing product cycle times as on their contribution to safety. But this will require them to be used right from the outset in the development of the requirements, and this culture change may well be a far bigger impediment than the creation of the actual tools themselves. Something to look forward to. TS From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: showie@uoguelph.ca (Steve Howie) Subject: Cubana DC-10 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Guelph Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:06 Message-ID: According to the Cuban government Web page, under Cubana, they indicate they operate a DC-10 for international flights. Given the less than rosy relations between the two governments, I wonder if anyone has information on how Cubana gets their spares for this plane, given that the trade embargo would probably preclude this sort of dealing? I know the Cubans were very resourceful in keeping '57 Chevies running by fabricating spares, but I sincerely hope this philosophy wouldn't extend to a jetliner :) Just curious, Steve Howie Email: showie@uoguelph.ca NetNews and Listserv Admin. Phone: (519) 824-4120 x2556 Computing and Communications Svcs. Fax: (519) 763-6143 University of Guelph From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: British Airways - How many DC-10's? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:06 Message-ID: According to the latest JP Airline Fleets, recently published, BA owns eight DC-10-30s and leases one out. JRH From kls Mon Jun 24 00:42:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kenl@central.susx.ac.uk (Ken Lewis) Subject: Re: British Airways - How many DC-10's? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Sussex Date: 24 Jun 96 00:42:06 Message-ID: Cas42879 (cas42879@aol.com) wrote: : I think that they are now down to six in BA colors. They are still flying : into Houston Intercontinental on a daily basis (IAH-LGW). BAs web pages state they have 7 in service. Ken Lewis From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rat1@crux3.cit.cornell.edu (Ryan A. Tam) Subject: Re: Continental 747s? Why? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Cornell University Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:48 Message-ID: tiffany.tyler@man.ac.uk (Tiffany Tyler) writes: >I see from Continental's January fleet summary that they are still >flying 2 747s... CO is still using the 747s between Tokyo and Honolulu, and this has got to be one of their most profitable routes. Even with the high cost of operating such a small fleet, I believe that they can fill every seat on the 747 (and then some), and thus turn a nice profit. CO must also be maintaining the 747 in Japan, because they have no such facilities here in Honolulu. The aircraft are part of the airline's Continental Micronesia operation, I believe... Cheers (Aloha!). Ryan Tam (rat1@cornell.edu) From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sky Subject: Re: Continental 747s? Why? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:48 Message-ID: On 22 Jun 1996, Tiffany Tyler wrote: > I see from Continental's January fleet summary that they are still > flying 2 747s. Given that they have gotten rid of the A300s and seem > Anyone know what routes they are flying ? Tokyo Narita-Honolulu-Los Angeles The Japanese it is said really love 4-engine Boeings. Bluecoat Digest mail list maintainer- Jim Messina http://www.neosoft.com/~sky (Bluecoat Web links) From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dangrad@ix.netcom.com (Daniel J. Gradwohl) Subject: Re: delta LA-Hong Kong flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:49 Message-ID: Hey all: > I was told point blank by a Delta MD-11 captain that the MD-11 *********** > is the sole reason DL stopped flying to HKG. Pilots are the LEAST reliable source of information about why a route was dropped....we don't have full information about yield which is the main factor that one must conisder when discussing whether or not a flight is making money (load factor is meaningless is the yield is low, e.g. HNL-West Coast). Additionally, pilots have NO idea of the cargo yield.....only how many pax are onboard and how many #s of cargo below. Dan Gradwohl Ryan International Airlines B727 F/E IND/LAX From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:49 Message-ID: > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the > FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. Dfwmech@concentric.net writes : >I have heard it is because of the large amount of wing vortex >turbalance the 757 creates during takeoff and landing. Strictly speaking, vortex strength != turbulence; although the seat of the pants feel in the following aircraft is similar. Gary Moffitt writes : >Therefore the FAA has called the 757 a heavy jet so that >controllers will maintain a greater degree of separation between the 757 >and other aircraft A wise move.... as one travels downstream from the aircraft, the wing vorticies roll up and translate downwards (the after-effect of downwash). Greater interaircraft spacing will allow additional time for the vortex to translate out of the flight path. C. Martin Faure writes : >I believe its category was changed because of its wingspan and wingtip >vortex characteristics. The 757, like the 767, was given very long wings >to maximize its efficiency. These wings can generate fairly strong tip >vortices (sp?). A point of confusion is the net strength of the far field wing vortex with the strength of the near field wing-tip vortex. In theory, the higher aspect ratio wings should have lower induced drag, and a weaker wingtip vortex for a given net wing loading. Another point to consider is that aircraft, such as the 757, have a significant amount of taper and twist in their wings... the span loading should diminish towards the wingtip resulting in vorticity being shed over the entire span (not just at the wingtip). John Wangermann notes : >Operational experience and some experiments have shown that while the >wake vortices of 757s are not unusually strong, they have a very tight core >that is very persistent This may be due to a number of factors... my personal hunch being the lack of thrust gates in the high-lift system on the 757. Research at NASA/Ames during the 1970s (Rossow, Corsiglia, et al) demonstrated that the far-field wake vortex behavior can be modulated by changes in the flap configuration. Experiments made with the then new B-747 had revealed that unconventional flap rigging could produce vorticies which interacted in the near field so that they would actually disperse in the far field. The 757 has a very clean high-lift system, with essentially an inboard and outboard flap edge vortex for each wing. The chances for a favorable interaction of these vorticies a-la Rossow and Corsiglia seems remote to me. In any case, the induced drag of the 757 high lift system is lower than some other aircraft... the good points of this design are better takeoff and climb performance with the flaps deployed. -tim From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bill Hensley Subject: Oscillation during flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:49 Message-ID: Hi, during a recent ATL-DFW flight, the 727-223 I was riding began a series of oscillations of increasing size. The first was about 2-3 degrees and the 10th was about 15-20 degrees. I am a bit uncertain of the exact values as I had no way of precisely measuring the activity. A second set of oscillations of lesser intensity and duration occurred about 2 minutes later. I was sitting in the very back of the aircraft during this event. No wx was nearby, although you sould see some TCU off in the distance to the north. This occurred about 45 min after takeoff, somewhere over MS/AL. The ride was totally smooth otherwise. I have been riding as a passenger literally hundreds of thousands of miles, through some truly crappy wx and two IFEs, including a slide ride from a 747-200. I've never been in an aircraft that has done this. It was a bit disconcerting. Question I have is can anyone give me a good explanation? I tried to talk to the flight crew but they were gone from the cockpit by the time I got to the front after arrival. A veteran flight attendent on the flight said that she hadn't ever felt anything like it either. My only thoughts were some strange atmospheric waves or even a temporary CG problem with the aircraft. Cheers, Bill Hensley TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office -- email mailto:Bill_Hensley@smtp.rc.trw.com web http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/Bill_Hensley/ From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Harvey Schmiddlapp XVMIII Subject: Turbopro near-instantaneous power (Waterbombers) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Arizona Daily Star - AZSTARNET Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:49 Message-ID: On a turboprop, like the C-130, the engine spins at approximately 13000 RPM while the prop spins at approximately 1100. When the pilot advances the power, the angle of the prop blades to the airstream change to and essentially add lift in the forward direction. The engine as the prop pulls more power, it signals the fuel system to increase the fuel, thus the power to substain the 1100 RPM and additional thrust. The near instantaneous transition from low thust to high thrust is made possible by the torque generated by the turbines spinning at 13000 RPM. In other words, the turbines act as a flywheel, storing energy. From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: frank247d@aol.com (Frank247D) Subject: Ryan M-2 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: frank247d@aol.com (Frank247D) Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:50 Message-ID: Does anyone out there have information about a Ryan M-2 believed to be the 3rd model built? Russell Koetke, retired USAF CMS whom I met at Seattle's Museum of Flight the other day told me of this airplane. He had run across it in an old barn near Sidney, Montana in the sring of 1959. Reportedly it had been stored there since 1941-42 with the wings sawn off at the fuselage. Care had been taken in storage, wings had been hung up, leading edge down, and it appeared to be restoreable. Minot A. F. officials met with a local pharmacist who was a part ownerand got agreement to attempt restoration. After restoration was completed the aircraft was moved outside the VA hospital at Minot in a glass enclosure. Reportedly it has been taken out of this display and started and taxxied at some local fair times. Is this aircraft still at Minot and still operable? Does anyone have any photos? Frank Leathley, Docent, Museum of Flight Frank247D@aol.com From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikeb@ssd.fsi.com (Mike Bates) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: FlightSafety-SSD, Tulsa, OK, USA Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:50 Message-ID: In article lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) writes: I, of course, have no definitive information but I suspect that the original N number (N4713U) ending in 13 may have had something to do with renumbering it. We seem to be somewhat schizophrenic with regards to the number 13. We have nose numbers and N numbers ending in 13 and row number 13 on every airplane but no flight numbers ending in 13 or 13xx. Also, no gate 13 (or B13, etc.) at any airport of which I am aware. There's a K13 at ORD. Flew out of that gate earlier today. From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kbrews@stratus.gcn.uoknor.edu (Keith Brewster) Subject: Air Force One Turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CAPS Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:50 Message-ID: Does anyone have details (exact time, location and FL) of the Air Force One turbulence encounter June 13th? All I have now is Thursday, near Lubbock. -Keith ------------------------- Keith Brewster Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms Univ of Oklahoma kbrewster@uoknor.edu From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steven Belle Subject: Re: B-777 cockpit Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Primenet Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:50 Message-ID: C. Marin Faure wrote: > > The 777 does not have a flight engineer. It has a two-crew cockpit. The > display you're referring to is called a "MAT" (Maintenance Access > Terminal) and is used by ground technicians to access the 777's on-board > fault reporting and diagnosis system called BITE, which stands for > Built-In-Test-Equipment. There is a similar display in the E-bay under > the forward cabin, and portable units (PMATs) can be plugged in at various > points around the plane. The screen forward of the ppower levers in the > center consol also can be used as a MAT. > Well, a bit of a nitpick on the name -- the MAT runs software (MTF - Maintenance Terminal Function) that is used to access the CMCF (Central Maintenance Computing Function) or ACMF (Airplane Condition Monitoring Function). BITE is kind of a generic term used to describe the fault reporting done by the various black boxes on the airplane. Also, the lower center display unit can't be used to access the CMCF or ACMF. There may be maintenance information displayed there via EICAS, but you can't get to the CMCF or ACMF through that display. There are optional side displays that are located to the outboard side of either front seat that could be used like a MAT, but whether the side displays are present depends on whether the airline bought them. Those side displays do use the center console mounted touch pad for a pointing device. > Unless the airline you were on ordered something different from the 777s > I've been on here at Boeing, the pull-down menus on the MAT and on the > flight crew's center display are activated by touch pads, not trackballs. > All you do is move your finger around on the pad and the cursor on the > screen follows. The flight crew's touch pads are beside them just forward > of the power lever quadrant, and incorporate palm rests to make it easier > to use the pad in turbulence. The MAT vendor did switch from the pressure sensitive touch pads to a track ball, but I believe you when you say that you still have the MAT touch pads floating around at Boeing. The pointing devices for the up-front displays is indeed a touch pad (not a pressure sensitive touch pad, but I'm not sure about the correct term -- capacitance, maybe?) Steve Belle From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sbelle@primenet.com (Steve Belle) Subject: Re: B-777 cockpit Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Primenet (602)416-7000 Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:50 Message-ID: I'm following up on my own post -- sorry. When I read C. Marin Faure's words about the lower center display (the multifunction display - MFD) being used for maintenance, my brain automatically thought EICAS. EICAS messages are something that the Central Maintenance Computer (CMC) will try to correlate a faulty LRU to. After I hit the "post" button, I remembered that there are other maintenance pages available on the MFD (via a CDU button). These pages can show data for various airplane systems that may help in fault isolation. My original point was and still is that the MAT (and PMATS) is (are) used to connect to the CMCF (or ACMF). The MFD maintenance pages do not connect the user to the CMCF (or ACMF). From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: B-777 cockpit Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:50 Message-ID: In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: |> In article , ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca |> (Alan Browne) wrote: |> |> > 2- There was a flight engineer station, immediately behind the co-pilot's |> > seat. The station consisted of a large flat panel display and a trackball. |> > The flight engineer, monitored systems and called up maintenance logs, and |> > maintenance bulletins on this display. |> |> The 777 does not have a flight engineer. It has a two-crew cockpit. The |> display you're referring to is called a "MAT" (Maintenance Access |> Terminal) and is used by ground technicians to access the 777's on-board |> fault reporting and diagnosis system called BITE, which stands for |> Built-In-Test-Equipment. There is a similar display in the E-bay under |> the forward cabin, and portable units (PMATs) can be plugged in at various |> points around the plane. The screen forward of the ppower levers in the |> center consol also can be used as a MAT. There is no MAT display in the EE bay--only a port for the PMAT. And, the screen forward of the power levers is not a MAT and is not running the same applications, but can be used to access limited BITE information, configuration data, etc. Some airlines have ordered, as an option, forward displays on either side of the cockpit near the tillers, which are actually MAT variants called Side Displays (SDs). They can use the AIMS cursor control as they don't have their own trackballs. |> Unless the airline you were on ordered something different from the 777s |> I've been on here at Boeing, the pull-down menus on the MAT and on the |> flight crew's center display are activated by touch pads, not trackballs. |> All you do is move your finger around on the pad and the cursor on the |> screen follows. The flight crew's touch pads are beside them just forward |> of the power lever quadrant, and incorporate palm rests to make it easier |> to use the pad in turbulence. The production MAT actually uses a trackball, not a touchpad. I believe, but am not sure, that the AIMS cursor control is a touchpad. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-1862 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: B-777 cockpit Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:51 Message-ID: >The 777 does not have a flight engineer. It has a two-crew cockpit. The >display you're referring to is called a "MAT" (Maintenance Access >Terminal) and is used by ground technicians to access the 777's on-board >fault reporting and diagnosis system called BITE, which stands for >Built-In-Test-Equipment. There is a similar display in the E-bay under >the forward cabin, and portable units (PMATs) can be plugged in at various >points around the plane. The screen forward of the ppower levers in the >center consol also can be used as a MAT. > >Unless the airline you were on ordered something different from the 777s >I've been on here at Boeing, the pull-down menus on the MAT and on the >flight crew's center display are activated by touch pads, not trackballs. >All you do is move your finger around on the pad and the cursor on the >screen follows. The flight crew's touch pads are beside them just forward >of the power lever quadrant, and incorporate palm rests to make it easier >to use the pad in turbulence. While you are right that the pilot/co-ppilot displays use a touchpad, I assure you that the MAT behaind the copilot uses a trackball. That supports your assertion that the panel is for maintenance and not for operational use in flight. On the other hand, the fellow who sat there during the flight, and used it during the flight was introduced as the flight engineer, and wore 2nd officer bars...I guess for initial service, that airline wanted an extra man up front... Alan From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: edwardsj@newsfeed.vivanet.com (James Edwards) Subject: Fuel management systems? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: news.vivanet.com Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:51 Message-ID: Hi, What kind of fuel management systems are being used in the new aircraft. I know that older ships just had some analog gauges to show fuel rate. Can anyone tell me some of the data that is available to the flight crew that is calculated from the flow rate i.e. quantities that are shown, warnings that are given, and what nav units are also tied into.. Also how much of this is really used by the pilots, what do they really want to know about the fuel system. Thanks edwardsj@vivanet.com From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jnedzel@netcom.com (Jared Nedzel) Subject: Re: Delta/American fleet composition Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:51 Message-ID: In article Steve Lacker writes: [deleted] >certainly doesn't seem to have happened (a good thing IMHO). In fact, I only >encountered about 3 Delta MD-11's on the ground at the various airports I've >hit recently (DFW, Atlanta, Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, Cincinnati, Logan, >National and a few others). Delta mainly uses the MD-11s on transatlantic routes. I'm surprised that you saw one in Logan -- I've never seen one there. [deleted] >What is Delta's actual fleet strategy for the next few years? Are they still >buying 757's or not? What will they replace the L-1011's with, if not the >MD-11? Delta recently announced a purchase of aircraft which included, IIRC, both 757s and 767-300s. Delta will use the 767-300s on overseas routes, replacing L-1011s. These overseas L-1011s will then replace high-time domestic L-1011s, which will be retired. As has been noted in this group, however, the overseas L-1011s are significantly smaller than the domestic L-1011s. This could cause some problems for routes where they are already filling domestic L-1011s and have little ability to add more flights. [deleted] -- Jared Nedzel jnedzel@netcom.com MRC Partners Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: Delta/American fleet composition Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: worldbank Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:51 Message-ID: Steve Lacker wrote: > What is Delta's actual fleet strategy for the next few years? Are they still > buying 757's or not? What will they replace the L-1011's with, if not the > MD-11? Not sure if they currently have any 757s on order, but it sure wouldn't surprise me. As for the L-1011s, Delta has ordered some additional 767-300s to replace some of them. But clearly a long-term replacement has not been selected yet. Its unlikely to be the MD-11, which is a long-range aircraft whereas Delta's L-1011s are primarily domestic. The 777 or the A330 would be better replacements. That doesn't mean Delta won't get more MD-11s, but that depends on the success of overseas routes, not L-1011 replacements. > What about the Delta Shuttle 727's- are these still the ex-Trump planes, > or did Delta mix them with their own fleet of 727's. What will become the > aircraft of choice for the shuttle once the stage-2 727's are verboten? MD-80s? > 737s (I don't think Delta owns enough post-200 series 737's to do this)? Any > rumors of Delta planning to hushkit the shuttle 727's or other 727s? First, Delta Shuttle's 727s are NOT ex-Trump. The USAir Shuttle has the ex-Trump (ex-Eastern) 727s. Delta took over the Pan Am Shuttle. This came with some 727s, but most were leased and, I think, have since been returned. The 727s I see on the Shuttle runs these days are all from Delta's own orders. As for the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see MD-80s take over those runs when the 727s leave. The MD-80s are quiet, and their 5-abreast seating is comfortable. And critically, in terms of economics, early MD-80s are now 15 years old so there should be many fully-depreciated aircraft around. Right now, though, the MD-80 is probably still too valuable for such use. > I also have similar curiosities about American's fleet plans, given the > apparent unhappiness with their MD-11's and the fact that silver MD-90's are > conspicuously absent at DFW. Will American begin to replace their sizeable and > mostly early-production MD80 fleet with MD90s, or something else? If so, what? American is still embroiled in negotiations with its pilots over their contract; don't expect any long-term fleet choices until that gets resolved. I wouldn't be surprised to see AA get MD-90s, but to replace their remaining 727s, not their MD-80s (which are by no means all -- or mostly -- early-build, BTW). Additional 757s will probably also play a role here. Then again, AA may hushkit the 727s. Recent rumors coming out of AA are that they'll probably keep the MD-11s they have left. AA has also expressed interest in the stretched MD-11 Douglas is talking about. Stefano From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta/American fleet composition Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:51 Message-ID: >First, Delta Shuttle's 727s are NOT ex-Trump. The USAir Shuttle has the >ex-Trump (ex-Eastern) 727s. Delta took over the Pan Am Shuttle. This >came with some 727s, but most were leased and, I think, have since been >returned. The 727s I see on the Shuttle runs these days are all from >Delta's own orders. This surprised me but I looked it up and, sure enough, Delta has five of their own, bought new from Boeing, 727-232 Advanceds dedicated to Shuttle service. They started the Shuttle in August, 1991, using nine 727-227(A) [Braniff] and one 727-243(A) [Alitalia] leased from Continental, all transfered over from the Pan Am Shuttle fleet, which had a few other 727s which were not transferred. These appear to have lasted about 1.5 to 2 years before being replaced with Delta's own planes. The next month, DL picked up a handful of ex-Eastern 727-225(A)s. At a glance, this might lead to some confusion with the Trump/Eastern Shuttle, but it's just coincidence as they never had anything to do with the Pan Am or Delta Shuttle. Last year only five of these were left and they may be all gone now too. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gdmckinn@ccnet.com (Gary McKinnis) Subject: Re: Report out on B757 crash off Dominican Rep. ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CCnet Communications (510-988-7140 guest) Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:52 Message-ID: sasa3d@unx.sas.com (Ali Dogrusoz) writes: >Instead, the report actually blames Boeing for failing to provide >proper warning systems in the pilot's cabin and flight deck. The >recent plane crash happened because the pilots were misinformed >about flight conditions the report claims." AvLeak (I don't remember which issue) had an article on the cockpit voice recorder contents. It appears that the Captain's airspeed indicator was inop, discovered during the takeoff roll. I don't remember the rest of the details, but the crew appeared to get conflicting information from the instruments which led them to lose complete control of the aircraft. Gary From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew J Braithwaite Subject: Re: real flight simulators Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Ford Motor Company Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:52 Message-ID: Flight International Simulator Census may be a good starting point. You'll get the addresses of the major simulator operators who may have what you want amongst their fleet. Can't imagine that there are many 707 Sim's still around, you would probably have more luck looking for a 727 amongst airlines who are retiring them from the fleet. If I hear of any I'll post or mail the info. -- Andrew Braithwaite Email: abraithw@ford.com (Work) Powertrain Control Systems Engineering gf10@dial.pipex.com (Home) Ford Motor Company Tel: +44 (0)1268 404115 "The opinions expressed are mine and not necessarily those of my employer." From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: B757. Maximum seating? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Loughborough University Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:52 Message-ID: >> >It has surprised a lot of readers in the various aviation newsgroups >> >that the B757 on charter flights from the UK are configured for 235 >> >pax. > >> Boeing literature shows a maximum of 231 seats for the 757-200, with >> 28-/29-/30-inch seat pitch, but Britannia is indeed listed as packing >> 235 seats into a 757-200. > >Is this practice blessed by Civil Aviation Safety bodies? Would they >get away with this in the USA? The Boeing 757 is certified by the FAA/JAA/CAA for a maximum of 239 seats, so the answer is yes! >> >Are BY alone in this sardine tin config? is it commom elsewhere? >> The only other examples of such sardine configurations were all in the >> UK -- Monarch also has them with 235 seats, while Air 200, Airtours >> International, and Caledonian (leased from British Airways) all have >> 757s with 233 seats. The Brits must be real gluttons for punishment! > >What,s the choice? If you refuse to fly them, then you dont get to go. >Combine this with horrendous nightflights arriving in the early hours >of the morning and you can see just how brutal it is. > >I remember a group of Germans studying the Brits return flights at my hotel. >They were doubled over with laughter at the time of the return flights! >They along with other continentals absolutely refuse to fly at night. > >Perhaps the Brits are well disciplined or totally beaten into submission. I think most other UK charter operators (Monarch, Air 2000, Caladonian, Airotours) use a similar layout. In general most of these operators fly sub 5 hour routes on tourist holidays to Spain and Greece where a low price for the holiday means more than comfort on the flight. Similar seat picthes are used on other aircraft in their fleets (737, MD-83, A320). A few years ago I few on a Dan Air B727 which was kitted out for the maximum 189 seats. The seat pitch looked and felt like it was around 30 inches. It's also worth noting that over the past few years there has been a gradual change in the popular tourist resorts for UK holiday makers. Previously the most popular were Spain and Greece (<4 hours from UK). However, many operators now use the extra range of the 757 (cf. 737) to operate flights to Florida. The reason for the late night flights is due the pricing policy of tourist holidays in the UK. You pay for the basic holiday and flight (2 weeks in Spain is around 400-500 ukp), and then you pay a surcharge per person depending on the airport and time of flight. These surcharges vary from zero up to 80ukp. Night flights have low surcharges to entice people to use these flights and increase aircraft utilisation. Many UK operators achieve the highest utilisations for their in Europe. Similarly flight to more smaller regional airports have higher surcharges. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, B.Eng (Hons) | Department of Aeronautical & Automotive | | Tel: +44 (0)1509 223454 | Engineering & Transport Studies, | | Fax: +44 (0)1509 223946 | Loughborough University, | | Email: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk | Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Al Hrovat Subject: Proximity Switches Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell CAS-SPO Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:52 Message-ID: I understand that modern aircraft use a magnetic sensor called a proximity switch to determine the position of landing gear, doors, etc. Does anyone know why this arrangement is used instead of a simple mechanical switch? Are the magnetic pick-offs more reliable than a simple switch? -- Al Hrovat | Ahrovat@cfsmo.honeywell.com Honeywell Commercial Aviation Systems | (612) 957-4257 voice Minneapolis, MN 55433-6040 | (612) 957-4195 fax * The views expressed are my own, and don't represent those of Honeywell. * From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: What happened to STOL ?(was What happened to the BA146) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ISFSI Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:52 Message-ID: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca wrote: >I'm guessing, but wasn't Dash-7 production treminated in favor of >the Dash-8. I don't think they were both in production at the same time. I don't have the precise date of the last Dash-7 production, but do know that -7s were being delivered as late as 1986, while the first Dash-8 was delivered to Norontair 23 Oct 84. From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: What happened to STOL ?(was What happened to the BA146) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:53 Message-ID: <> >The DHC-7 aimed at a merket which never really materialized. >In the early 1970s 'STOLports' were supposedly going to be the >future of air travel. AFAIK only two were purposely built, LCY >and one in Montreal. >The Montreal experiment faded after a year or so, and LCY has been >expanded to a 'real' airport. > <> AFAIK, the only aircraft to "sched" out of the Montreal STOL port were Twin-Otters (DHC-6). The run was from the old remote parking lot for the 1967 World's Fair in Montreal to Ottawa's ( ... ) airport (an old air force field near the river, which is now a private field. (Also has Canada's Aeronautical collection in a new modern museum...well worth the visit!) I remember a lot of the "hype" about the DHC-7 and MLS permitting taxiway landings and take offs, thereby freeing up runways for larger aircraft...I don't remember if this actually became a practice anywhere (with or without MLS...) Alan Browne. From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Oldest Air Force Jet Transport to Retire (Again!) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:53 Message-ID: Three years ago I posted the following note to the Airliners list: >Last week the Air Force retired 707-153B tail number 58-6970 (MSN 17925, >line # 33). This aircraft was delivered to the Air Force in 1958 and was >the first (KC-135s aside) jet transport used by the air force. It has >spent its entire 35 year career at Andrews AFB flying VIP missions, >accumulating some 20,000+ flying hours ( a youngster - fatigue wise). > >970 was used briefly by Eisenhower but was never officially "Air Force >One". Kennedy also used the aircraft at times. By the time Jet power >was accepted for regular presidential travel 707-353B 62-6000 had arrived >for duty as Air Force One and 970 was relegated to flying lesser VIPs. > >970 still had a role to play in history. The aircraft was used by Kissinger >while negotiating the end to the vietnam war, Al Haig while trying to >negotiate a peaceful end to the Falklands conflict, and by LBJ when he >flew to Dallas in Nov 63 (LBJ returned to DC aboard 26000 with Kennedys >body). It was the "shuttle" in shuttle diplomacy. > >The aircraft will be making a final flight to the Air Force Museum at >Wright Patterson AFB sometime in the near future. I will post the date >and time when I get it. > >I don't know exactly why it is being retired as it seems to have plenty >of hours left. I expect the Air Force did not want to try >hushkitting/reengining a 707 subtype that had not already been modified >commercially - I could be wrong.. BTW: Plans are afoot to replace the >remaining 707s at Andrews with 767s sometime before the end of the decade >- Funds permiting. > >One last note: If anyone out there in netland has any interesting anecdotes >about 970 or any of the other aircraft in the fleet at Andrews I'd like >to hear from you and swap stories...... Well as is sometimes the case in the Air Force things did not go according to the plan I described above. The aircraft was formally retired with a ceremony, the folks at the Air Force Museum were anticipating the aircrafts arrival, and the maintenance folks here at Andrews stripped the aircraft of usable spares. Then "someone" found the extra millions needed to send the airframe for depot maintenance, and 970 got a 3 year extension on life! But now depot maintenance is due again and the money is not at hand. Sadly it seems the old bird is due to be ground bound again. With only 21000+ hours on its airframe 970 will be winging its way west Monday (17 June 96), bound for the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Scott From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: maury@softarc.com (Maury S. Markowitz) Subject: Vortex generators on engine nacells? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SoftArc Inc. Reply-To: maury@softarc.com Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:53 Message-ID: I just took my first ride in a 737-400 (I'm typically flying longer flights on larger planes) and noticed what appears to be a two-hand sized fin on the fuselage side of the engine. This sticks upward at about 45 degrees, and was generating a rather noticeable vortex (visible as well passed through some humid layers on takeoff). I later took a tour of the airport (the new Denver abomination) and noticed a similar fin on a number of planes, including DC-10's and 767's. What is the purpose of these? E-mail if you have a reply, my newsreader doesn't get this group. Maury From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter Smooker Subject: Three questions. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Monash University Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:53 Message-ID: I took the kids to Tullamarine airport (Melbourne Australia) today to watch the northerly takeoffs and landings- there is an ideal viewing spot along the north-south runway. There were three interesting incidents, which I would like to ask the experts about. 1. A Singapore airlines A340 moved onto the runway and took off, as an Ansett 727 was approaching. The 727 had to abort and go around. Is this a mistake by AirTraffic control, does it happen often and how annoyed would the 727 crew have been? 2. A Qantas 747-400 started its takeoff run and then stopped, moved off the runway and stopping and starting a few times (ie: winding up the engines) before moving into the queue again and taking off normally. What could have been the problem? 3. An Evergreen cargo 747 (200?) was about to take off. There was substantial vapour coming from the left wingtip. It took off and the vapour increased. After takeoff vapour was coming from the right hand wingtip as well, obscuring the plane. Was this fuel, and if so, is it not dangerous? Why was it being released? Thanks for the explanations From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: cakmakci@hydra.syr.edu (Ahmet M. Cakmakci) Subject: FYI, B757 crash at Bermuda. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:53 Message-ID: FYI, following is a press release from the Turkish Embassy in Washington DC. I found it at www.turkey.org. It is not copyrighted, please feel free to redistribute. Personally, I feel strongly that Birgenair should sue the German Goverment for the premature early negative press exposure. AMC ---------------------------------------- GERMANY BASED TURKISH "BIRGENAIR" CLEARED OF ACCUSATIONS Washington, D.C., June 20, 1996 -- The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has determined that the crash of Birgenair 757-200 after takeoff from the International Airport in Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic on February 6, 1996, killing all 189 passengers and flightcrew, was the result of a mechanical deficiency. The Safety Board's findings run counter to the hasty conjectures first alleging that the inexperience of the Turkish airline's pilots contributed to the tragic accident. Information recovered from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder indicates that the pitot static system aboard the accident flight, which is responsible for calculating airspeed, transmitted an erroneous airspeed indication. It is evident that the discrepancy in airspeed led to much of the confusion in the cockpit that preceded the accident. Initially, hasty accusation claimed that had the captain activated his alternative data source during the accident flight, it would have removed the erroneous airspeed indication and prevented the subsequent stalling of the aircraft. The Safety Board, however, found that Boeing Commercial Airplane Group's Operations Manual for B757 did not contain procedures either to identify an erroneous airspeed indication or to select the alternate air data source as a corrective maneuver. Moreover, the Boeing 757 EICAS system that provides alert messages to advise the pilots of system failures and non-normal operational conditions does not produce a message to alert pilots regarding an unreliable airspeed indication. The Safety Board recommended that the Federal Aviation Agency stipulate that Boeing revise its B757 flight manuals to alert pilots to the conditions that forewarn an erroneous airspeed indication, and include a detailed emergency procedure addressing the identification and elimination of an erroneous airspeed indication. In addition, Boeing should modify the crew alerting systems of the B757 to activate a "caution" alert when erroneous airspeed is detected. Already, such measures have been adopted by American Airlines and Delta Airlines. It is expected that as the principal commercial airlines manufacturer, Boeing will incorporate any and all safety precautions, no matter the cost, so as to avoid future tragedies. From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: N-version software compared to others Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:54 Message-ID: Tom Speer wrote on Mon Jun 24 08:49:28 1996: > I looked into the pro's and con's of N-version programming, and ran > accross some interesting studies. The one that impressed me the most > was one in which a couple of universities teamed up to provide something > like 16 independent programmer teams to code software from a common > spec. The reference is:- Knight J.C., Leveson N.G.: "An experimental evaluation of the assumption of independence in multiversion programming", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-12, (1), Jan. 1986, pp 96-109. Tom's summary of the experiment is pretty accurate, except that there were 27 different programs written from the same spec. These were written independently by 27 different students (or teams?) from two different universities, and 1 million test cases were applied, and the results compared with the "golden" version. Knight and Leveson's basic finding (that at a 98% confidence level, the independently written versions did not *fail* independently) effectively put a big nail in the coffin of N-version as a means of obtaining levels of reliability of the order of 1-10^9 per flight hour. Pete Mellor ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@SEI.CMU.EDU (Mark Bell) Subject: ValuJet Crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Software Engineering Institute Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:54 Message-ID: >From the Valley News Dispatch (Pittsburgh PA), Tuesday June 18, 1996 : Start Quote : "A Gannett Newspapers analysis of internal FAA documents found that ValuJet has been an airline with a troubling pattern of sloppy operations and maintenance long before the May 11 crash. While no single incident proved ValuJet was unsafe, it was a pattern the FAA quitely was investigating without telling the public of its concerns. Among the incidents : * A leaky fuel tank grounded a ValuJet plane in April 1995 at Washington's Dulles International Airport. But instead of fixing the leaky center tank, mechanics wired the tank shut so that nobody would put fuel in it. * The airline flew a plane with a leaky hydraulic system for almost a month in the fall of 1994. * After calls to an anonymous employee hotline, the FAA investigated ValuJet's drug-testing program and found the airline wasn't adequately testing employees. "This was obviously an airline out of control", said aviation consultant Michael boyd. "The FAA had its agenda to keep it quiet so as not to embarrass the secretary(Pena)" " End Quote. Now, the biggest aircraft I've ever flown is a Skylane, so I'm obviously not knowledgable about the first two examples cited above. My question is would these two conditions actually ground a DC-9, or were the fixes within flight standards ? The last example about the drug-testing, combined with Mr Boyd's statement, looks like they're setting ValuJet up for some big lawsuits regardless of what actually caused the crash (suprised ?). Mark PP/ASEL/IA C-170A N3850V Mark S. Bell 412-268-7925 (Voice) Software Engineering Institute 412-268-5758 (Fax) Carnegie Mellon University ** These are my opinions, 4500 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh PA.,15213 not those of the SEI or CMU ** From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jon Ward Subject: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The End at Infinity Reply-To: Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:54 Message-ID: This is not a political comment, but just something I which I found mildly amusing. Has anybody else noticed that with the rash of Boeing and MD crashes, the amount of Airbus bashing has dropped considerably? I will not get drawn into an argument about which airframer is superior (I have worked on projects for all three and more), but I feel it emphasises how partisan people can get about these things. Also, the number of recent crashes raises some serious questions in itself. It's starting to look slightly statistically significant. Are air saftey standards dropping? Is it just bad luck? Have airports suddenly started employing black cats to cross in front of aeroplanes to give their rescue people a job? I'm interested in hearing other peoples' views. 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 Mon Jun 24 12:24:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:54 Message-ID: Ok, ok, so I forgot Qantas. They've had 747SP's since 1981. And as far as Korean Air flying between Seoul and Seattle, that was just an educated guess. If anyone can prove me wrong on that one, then do it! From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Niels M. Sampath" Subject: Re: Q: Joined wings Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:54 Message-ID: In article D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk "Darren Rhodes" writes: > Personally I think multi-body aircraft offer a significant cost > advantage over conventional designs, but they don't reduce the span, > which is the main concern for the NLA. > Just a question from left-field but: why not a return to bi-planes (albiet swept wings etc.)? -- Niels From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:54 Message-ID: > > Last year I flew from Montreal to Vancouver on a Air Canada B-767. For > > some reason, I was discussing B-767's with the Flight Attendant, and > > with a twinkle in his eye, he said "guess which 767 this is?". > > Don't believe them. Any (in)famous plane(s) in an airline's fleet > quickly seem to become the whole fleet. A story in Airliners a few > years ago detailed the search by a 727 pilot who encounterd dozens > of ex-Northwest 727s that were *all* reputedly the very plane that > D.B. Cooper jumped out of. None of them were the real McCoy... And any (in)famous suspect in a crime quickly seems to become the criminal. The hijacker who jumped out of that 727 was *never identified*. -- Mark Brader, msb@sq.com | "Every new technology carries with it an opportunity SoftQuad Inc., Toronto | to invent a new crime" -- Laurence A. Urgenson From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dfwmech" Subject: Re: B757. Maximum seating? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:55 Message-ID: I work for Delta and at the present we are doing a modification to our 757's to hold 183 passengers. The seat pitch is staying the same at 32 inches, but we're removing a galley at R2 service door and adding a row of seats. -- Dfwmech@concentric.net A&P at DFW Views expressed are mine alone From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ray Clawson Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: customer of Internet America Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:55 Message-ID: >I've not heard of JP5; ISTM JP7 (or was it 8?) was SR-71 Blackbird >fuel -- thick gummy yucky stuff when cold, but by the time it was >heated [the fuel helped cool the skin], it flowed nicely. Many moon ago, I flew a logair run to Whiteman AFB, in a Convair 600, (RR turbo props) and the only fuel was JP8. A call to RR in Canada, they said JP8 was ok. From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mleibelt@tcs.itis.com (Mark Leibelt) Subject: Re: real flight simulators Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:55 Message-ID: >does anyone know where i can get info on old flight simulators for a 707 >or dc8 or even older airliners if possible. i am interested in buying one. >will pay top$$$$ BIG BUCKS for at least the DC-8 boxes...They are running 20-22 hours a day...If you can find one for sale and buy it, I'll rent time on it. From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sdmorris@mindspring.com (Scott D. Morris) Subject: Re: Am West "Arizona Diamondbacks" 757? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Scott D. Morris Enterprises - (yeah right!) Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:55 Message-ID: In article , astracon@aol.com you were to have said... > >Maybe this is "old" news but I just saw an America West 757 in "Arizona >Diamondbacks" colors at PHX. Is this new or has it been around a while? > >How many "special" 757's does HP have now? I know there is the Phoenix >Suns, Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio flags, any others I've missed? > >Steve Yepperz I know of another one. The "teamwork" one which is copied from a painting one of the kids of an HP employee did. It was to celebrate the carrier's emergence from bankruptcy. Problem is you can TELL it's the artwork of a child, it's pretty tacky... Scott -- "ScoMo" ][ No one can help you or hurt you, like someone you love ][ on IRC ,,. sdmorris@mindspring.com ~ Scott D. Morris ~ Atlanta, GA, USA (. .) Member of the SouthEast Regional Internet Society (SERIS) ~~~~oOO~~(_)~~OOo~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.msug.mindspring.com/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ From kls Mon Jun 24 12:24:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dweeks@primenet.com (David Weeks) Subject: Re: Am West "Arizona Diamondbacks" 757? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Date: 24 Jun 96 12:24:55 Message-ID: >How many "special" 757's does HP have now? I know there is the Phoenix >Suns, Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio flags, any others I've missed? "Teamwork", Suns, State of AZ, State of Nevada, State of Ohio, AZ Diamondbacks. I think that this is all at the present. David Weeks AWA A320 captain From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Richard A. Muirden" Subject: 777 fire? (fwd) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:07 Message-ID: I got this from a friend re the 777 incident... FYI... HONG KONG: FALSE FIRE ALARM IN CATHAY'S AIRCRAFT ------------------------------------------------- The HongKong Standard, 24 Jun 1996, p.1:- About 300 passengers were evacuated from a Cathay Pacific's aircraft that landed at Hong Kong's Kai Tak airport on 23 June 1996. The evacuation was due to a false fire alarm triggered by high moisture fruit on the plane's cargo section. The plane will not take off until the Civil Aviation Department finish its investigation of the fire alarm system. In addition, the airline may revise its current policy of carrying high moisture goods on planes. ------------------------------------------------- The fruit is Durian. I don't know how anyone can eat it as it really smells awful. Carrying Durian is a problem, as it has a very high moisture content which affects the smoke detectors in all aircraft. Over the years there have been several false fire warnings caused by Durian. Because of this, airline companies have special procedures for carrying Durian, such as only in certain baggage holds and wrapped up in plastic. It would appear that the smoke detectors on the B777 are even more sensitive than on other aircraft, as current procedures for carrying Durian on other aircraft seem to alleviate the problem. Cargo fire warnings are a very sensitive issue, as many aircraft over the years have been lost. Cargo compartments have 2 independent fire warning systems and a warning is only given if BOTH systems detect a fire. The crew then flood the compartment with Halon fire extinguishant. If the fire warning continues then you really start to think the worst and get the passengers off quickly. You never open a cargo compartment that has a fire warning if passengers are on board. The compartment is sealed and by then filled with Halon. When the compartment is opened the Halon escapes and air then feeds the fire. It would be very foolhardy to assume any warning was false. Aircraft manufacturers are talking about installing video cameras in cargo compartments and outside the aircraft so that the crew have more information before making any decisions. Can't come too soon. -- Richard A. Muirden, CNA, RMIT ITS Core Unix Systems Admin: Web+News+Post -Master mailto: richard@rmit.EDU.AU phone: 9660 3814, Fax: 9662 5652 likes: Boeing 'planes, United Airlines, Chocolate anything, Vodka drinks, Sci-fi 127 Shostakovich CD's to date. http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FYI, B757 crash at Bermuda. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:08 Message-ID: In article cakmakci@hydra.syr.edu (Ahmet M. Cakmakci) writes: >FYI, following is a press release from the Turkish Embassy in Washington >DC. I found it at www.turkey.org. It is not copyrighted, please feel >free to redistribute. > >Personally, I feel strongly that Birgenair should sue the German Goverment >for the premature early negative press exposure. Well, Turkish propaganda aside (protecting the reputation of their charter carrier), I don't see any indication of why they didn't just set power and fly a pitch setting by the ADI, while they figured out the conflicting airspeed indications. But what do I know. The investigation is not over. Let's save the whitewashing for later, eh? In cases like this, nobody's blameless, and the only people getting sued will likely be both Boeing and the airline, since they're always the organizations that get sued after a crash. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: FYI, B757 crash at Bermuda. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:08 Message-ID: In article , cakmakci@hydra.syr.edu (Ahmet M. Cakmakci) wrote: >FYI, following is a press release from the Turkish Embassy in Washington >DC. Right. It's from the Turkish Embassy, not the NTSB. >Personally, I feel strongly that Birgenair should sue the German Goverment >for the premature early negative press exposure. Not so fast. See below. >GERMANY BASED TURKISH "BIRGENAIR" CLEARED OF ACCUSATIONS > >Washington, D.C., June 20, 1996 -- The U.S. National Transportation Safety >Board has determined that the crash of Birgenair 757-200 after takeoff from >the International Airport in Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic on February 6, >1996, killing all 189 passengers and flightcrew, was the result of a >mechanical deficiency. The Safety Board's findings run counter to the hasty >conjectures first alleging that the inexperience of the Turkish airline's >pilots contributed to the tragic accident. > >Information recovered from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data >recorder indicates that the pitot static system aboard the accident flight, >which is responsible for calculating airspeed, transmitted an erroneous >airspeed indication. It is evident that the discrepancy in airspeed led to >much of the confusion in the cockpit that preceded the accident. I have not seen anything the NTSB has said but based on what I've heard and know about flying as a light plane pilot, this press release sure sounds like someone is trying to put some serious spin on this story. Frankly, just because the airspeed indicator failed in some fashion does not automatically exonerate the crew. Identification of failed instruments is a part of basic instrument training. Instruments will fail. But instrument failure doesn't mean you just automatically crash - not if the crew is doing its job. And flying, particularly in cruise, without a working airspeed indicator is not difficult. If the power is right and the plane is flying straight and level, then you know approximately what the airspeed is. I will be curious to see what the NTSB says in their final report but I will be very surprised, given what appears to be known, if pilot failure to identify the failed instrument and take appropriate action is not listed as a major cause. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jop Vlaskamp Subject: Re: Report out on B757 crash off Dominican Rep. ? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:08 Message-ID: At 12:24 24-06-96, you wrote: >AvLeak (I don't remember which issue) had an article on the cockpit voice >recorder contents. It appears that the Captain's airspeed indicator was >inop, discovered during the takeoff roll. Peter Ladkin has a homepage discussing aircraft accidents which have to do with computers/avionics/automation/etc. There is also a lot of information on the Birgenair crash: - The CVR transcript - The B757 Air Data System (excepted from the 757 AOM), including the pitot static schematic. - Comments and observations on the crash. - Press releases The CVR transcript can be accessed at: http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~ladkin/CVR-birgenair.html Daan Vlaskamp The Netherlands From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tom Speer Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:08 Message-ID: Ray Clawson wrote: > > >I've not heard of JP5; ISTM JP7 (or was it 8?) was SR-71 Blackbird > >fuel -- thick gummy yucky stuff when cold, but by the time it was > >heated [the fuel helped cool the skin], it flowed nicely. > > Many moon ago, I flew a logair run to Whiteman AFB, in a Convair 600, (RR > turbo props) and the only fuel was JP8. A call to RR in Canada, they said > JP8 was ok. JP8 and Jet-A are almost identical fuels. JP5 is used by the Navy because it is less volatile than JP4 or JP8 and is safer to store and handle onboard the carriers. TS From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: piwh@pcmail.nerc-bas.ac.uk (Paul Whiteman) Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: British Antarctic Survey Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:09 Message-ID: In article Ray Clawson writes: >Subject: Re: A second 757 crash -- off the Dominican coast >>I've not heard of JP5; ISTM JP7 (or was it 8?) was SR-71 Blackbird >>fuel -- thick gummy yucky stuff when cold, but by the time it was >>heated [the fuel helped cool the skin], it flowed nicely. I didnt see the original post however JP5 is high flash (aircraft) carrier (turbine) fuel. JP 7 is high flash tubine fuel meeting US Mil Spec T-38219B whilst JP 8 is low flash Turbine fuel to Mil Spec T-83133C (equal to UK AVTUR + FSII). There is a relationship between JP5 and JP7 but dont have time to follow through at present. All of these are to all intents kerosine and like all turbine fuels eg. JetA1 are "clear and bright" with similar viscosities. Not sure where the "thick gummy" bit comes from! Rgds, Paul (Whiteman) From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:09 Message-ID: C. Marin Faure (faurecm@halcyon.com) wrote: : FAA simply moved the 757 into the higher category, which was more accurate : as far as its wing characteristics are concerned anyway, thus increasing : the spacing between the 757 and a following airplane. End of wake vortex : incidents. Are there other civil transports with TOW's between 250,000 and 300,000 pounds? -- Gerry From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rathinam@worf.netins.net (Sethu R Rathinam) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: INS Info Servcies, Des Moines, IA, USA Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:09 Message-ID: Doug Snow (dougie@mama.indstate.edu) wrote: : On 10 Jun 1996 Mooney1@ix.netcom.com wrote: : > Hello I was wondering if someone can help me understanding why the : > FAA decreed the 757 as a Heavy Jet. : > I know it fits the Cat. just by using its weight, but if I'm not : Unless I was mistaken, the heavy moniker comes into play at gross weights : over 300,000 lbs. Even the B757-200ER ETOPS aircraft do not weight this : much. The highest max takeoff gross I have seen for a B757 is around : 255,000 for a ETOPS B757 of ATA. : Granted, it does have the wake turbulence of a heavy, in that the wing is : almost exactly like the B767s wing, which IS a heavy jet. I can't find any information on "757 Classified as heavy" by the FAA. However, the following URLs are of interest if you want to pursue this further. (I will copy the first and last paragraphs from the first URL to give a little background to future searchers of the s.a.a archives): URL: http://nasdac.faa.gov/cgi-bin/vdkw_cgi.exe/xadae0b65-1610/Search/ (search for 757 wake) BEGIN QUOTE Data_Source: U.S. Safety Recommendation Rprt_Nbr: A-94-55 [O] Since December 1992, there have been five accidents and incidents in which an airplane on approach to landing encountered the wake vortex of a preceding Boeing 757. Thirteen occupants died in two of the accidents. The encounters, which occurred while the aircraft were on visual approaches, were severe enough to create an unrecoverable loss of control for a Cessna Citation, a Cessna 182, and an Israel Aircraft Industries Westwind. Additionally, there were significant but recoverable losses of control for a McDonnell Douglas MD-88 and a Boeing 737 (both required immediate and aggressive flight control deflections by their flightcrews). ... A significant body of knowledge has been compiled about the characteristics of wake vortices for the Boeing 757 and other transport category aircraft. This information is being integrated into the various FAA wake vortex initiatives now underway to address the vortex hazard. END QUOTE (There is more on this web page) URL: http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/HBAT/hbat9417.txt This page talks about Pilot Training in Heavy Wake Vortex Turbulence: Awareness and Containment. I believe this Flight Standards Handbook Bulletin for Air Transportation is the formal FAA Action that came out. Other URLS of interest: http://www.nbaa.org/nonmember/library/pressreleases/pr94/94-34.htm http://www.hiway.co.uk/customer/aviation/public/index94.html http://www.aopa.org/prjpilot/tornado.html (Anecdotal evidence and accident/incident reports and pointers in the last 3). -- ======================================================================== Sethu R.Rathinam rathinam@worf.netins.net (Finger for PGP Public Key) Key fingerprint = C5 F8 89 0C 82 9A BA 28 E4 6A D7 C6 E3 95 5E C4 ======================================================================== From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:09 Message-ID: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) writes: >The FAA considered moving the B-757-200 into the heavy category, due to >unusually long lasting wake vorticies, but later decided not to do so. AnD of Course, the right to lAnd at some important airports ^ ^ ^ would never ever into such a decision.... -- 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 Thu Jun 27 12:42:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tom Speer Subject: Re: Three questions. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:09 Message-ID: Peter Smooker wrote: > >... What could have been the problem? > 3. An Evergreen cargo 747 (200?) was about to take off. There was > substantial vapour coming from the left wingtip. It took off and the > vapour increased. After takeoff vapour was coming from the right hand > wingtip as well, obscuring the plane. Was this fuel, and if so, is it not > dangerous? Why was it being released? > .... What you saw was water vapor in the air condensing in the core of the wingtip vortex. The increase right after takeoff would have been due to the aircraft rotating and pulling up to begin the climb. The differences between right and left were probably due to small variations in the atmospheric humidity or temperature. If you watch landing aircraft, you will often see the same thing happening in the vortices shed off the ends of the flaps. Watch for momentary increases any time the pilot pulls up, and vice versa, while tracking the glidepath. Under the right conditions, water vapor will also be visible in broader low pressure regions, such as the top of the wings. TS From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: Three questions. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Your Organization Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:10 Message-ID: >1. A Singapore airlines A340 moved onto the runway and took off, as an >Ansett 727 was approaching. The 727 had to abort and go around. Is this a >mistake by AirTraffic control, does it happen often and how annoyed would >the 727 crew have been? >2. A Qantas 747-400 started its takeoff run and then stopped, moved off >the runway and stopping and starting a few times (ie: winding up >the engines) before moving into the queue again and taking off normally. >What could have been the problem? >3. An Evergreen cargo 747 (200?) was about to take off. There was >substantial vapour coming from the left wingtip. It took off and the >vapour increased. After takeoff vapour was coming from the right hand >wingtip as well, obscuring the plane. Was this fuel, and if so, is it not >dangerous? Why was it being released? > 1) It could be a mistake by ATC for spacing the 727 too close. It could be that the A340 took longer than anticipated on the runway. I was on a DC-10 into O Hare once when we did a go around. The pilot said that the aircraft ahead of us had not cleared the runway for us to land safely. 2) The pilot may have had an engine instrument warning or indication that something was unusual. Hard to guess what it could be. 3) It most likely was not fuel. Many times during high humidity conditions the wing tips generate >visible< vortices because the higher pressure air on the bottom of the wing is circulating to the top of the wing where it is lower pressure. Under certain conditions of high humidity, or dew point and temperature are close, the change in pressure is enough to condense the water out of the air. These vortices always exist, but are visible during these conditions. From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter neville gurnell Subject: Re: Three questions. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc. Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:10 Message-ID: Peter Smooker wrote: > > I took the kids to Tullamarine airport (Melbourne Australia) today to > watch the northerly takeoffs and landings- there is an ideal viewing spot > along the north-south runway. There were three interesting incidents, > which I would like to ask the experts about. I must say that you are an extreemly observant person to note all of this during a sightseeing visit. > 1. A Singapore airlines A340 moved onto the runway and took off, as an > Ansett 727 was approaching. The 727 had to abort and go around. Is this a > mistake by AirTraffic control, does it happen often and how annoyed would > the 727 crew have been? Depends! We all like to finger ATC however the approaching aircraft may have been cheating by a few knots on the speed he(the generic he) was supposed to maintain up to the final approach fix (3-4miles from touchdown). Also the A340 may have had a slot time (10 minute space) to meet in order to get their clearance. If it was an ATC screw up most pilots get somewhat perturbed. During my most recent one in Narita when we were told to go around the captain I was flying with said "Roger, cleared to land" just to see what the Japanese ATC would do. (nobody fell on sword) > 2. A Qantas 747-400 started its takeoff run and then stopped, moved off > the runway and stopping and starting a few times (ie: winding up > the engines) before moving into the queue again and taking off normally. > What could have been the problem? Usually an abandoned takeoff (as opposed to rejected takeoff) occurs due to a takeoff configuration warning or an abnormal parameter being noticed as power was advanced. It could have been one of a bizillion things. > 3. An Evergreen cargo 747 (200?) was about to take off. There was > substantial vapour coming from the left wingtip. It took off and the > vapour increased. After takeoff vapour was coming from the right hand > wingtip as well, obscuring the plane. Was this fuel, and if so, is it not > dangerous? Why was it being released? Supposing it was fuel rather than an atmospheric phenomenon it could have been from a vent box that allowed some fuel in during the fuelling process. Otherwise, I dunno. It would not have been coming from the dump valve unless it was some sort of a malfunction. Hope this helps, Cheers, Peter.> From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Three questions. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:10 Message-ID: In article , Peter Smooker wrote: > 3. An Evergreen cargo 747 (200?) was about to take off. There was > substantial vapour coming from the left wingtip. It took off and the > vapour increased. After takeoff vapour was coming from the right hand > wingtip as well, obscuring the plane. Was this fuel, and if so, is it not > dangerous? Why was it being released? Can't answer your first two questions, but the vapor you saw was condesation generated in the low-pressure wingtip vortices. The aerodynamic action of the wing causes the air pressure to drop very rapidly above the wing and in the vortices coming off the wingtips, flap edges, etc. As the air pressure drops rapidly, its temperature does, too, and if there is enough moisture in the air (humidity) it will condense in the low-pressure, low-temperature air and form instant "clouds." Its a very common phenomenon, and some planes do it more often than others. In Hawaii, it was normal for 737s to trail long vapor streams off each wingtip on final approach. The Air Force's F-4 Phantoms did it, too. Here in Seattle, our planes often almost totally disappear in the sudden cloud of vapor that comes off the entire upper wing surface at rotation on a drizzly day. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ropast@cyberg.it (romina) Subject: Re: Three questions. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Centro Servizi Interbusiness Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:10 Message-ID: Peter Smooker wrote: >3. An Evergreen cargo 747 (200?) was about to take off. There was >substantial vapour coming from the left wingtip. It took off and the >vapour increased. After takeoff vapour was coming from the right hand >wingtip as well, obscuring the plane. Was this fuel, and if so, is it not >dangerous? Why was it being released? >Thanks for the explanations About your 3rd question Vapour is actually normal at wing tips during rotation, especially during humid days. It is condensed water (contained in the air in gaseous state at ambient pressure). Water contained in the air always condenses when pressure decrease, as the saturated value (water/air ratio) is reached for that temperature. The pressure strongly decrease at wing tips during rotation as result of strong wing tip vortex due to difference of pressure between upper and lower surface of the wing. Sorry for my weak English. Hope to have clarified the nature of the phenomen. Andrea From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) Subject: Smoke Trail Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:10 Message-ID: To Whom it May Concern, I recently rode on a United Airlines 737 (-300 I think) and I noticed something peculiar during take-off. Just prior (approx 3sec) to the front wheels leaving the ground, a thin (approx 10cm diameter) stream of smoke was emitted from the front of the engine (I could only see one engine). This stream of smoke traveled over the top of the wing and then back toward the tail of the plane. It lasted about ten seconds. The sight reminded me of pictures I have seen of objects being tested in a wind tunnel where smoke (or something similar) is used to make visible the airflow direction. The same scenario was repeated on my return flight. Has anyone else seen a similar phenomena? More specifically, does anyone know what the cause of this is? Emails and post welcome. Thanks in advance. regards, Lars Ewell From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Phil Tracey &Brodie Walton Subject: Noise levels Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Wantree Development Reply-To: ptbwalt@wantree.com.au Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:11 Message-ID: has anyone done a noise evaluation (internal) on 30-35 seat regional aircraft. If so I would love some info,as our company is in the market for a new type, and I don't want to put up with the same levels I have had for the last six years (Do328/Emb120 etc). Thanks In advance Capt phil Walton. From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B-777 cockpit Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:11 Message-ID: In article , dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) wrote: > There is no MAT display in the EE bay--only a port for the PMAT. And, > the screen forward of the power levers is not a MAT and is not running > the same applications, but can be used to access limited BITE > information, configuration data, etc. > The production MAT actually uses a trackball, not a touchpad. I > believe, but am not sure, that the AIMS cursor control is a touchpad. Some people here at Boeing who e-mailed me to correct my original post said that we in fact do deliver a PMAT unit installed in the 777 E-bay as standard equipment. It is not on during flight; it is simply stored there and can be plugged into the E-bay port or taken out to one of the other remote ports. The first flight test 777s, which are the ones I've flown on, originally were equipped with touchpads at the MAT station in the cockpit. This was changed to a trackball on subsequent airplanes as it was decided that a trackball would be easier for mechanics to manipulate. The cursor controls for the AIMS screens are still touchpads with palm rests on either side of the throttle quadrant. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Daan Vlaskamp Subject: Re: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:11 Message-ID: At 16:32 1-06-96, Rick Hughes wrote: >>I don't know which airplane you're talking about but I have never seen >>an airplane that ever inhibits fire warning. > >The A330/340 does inhibit numerous warnings from 80 kts to 1500 FT RA, >but there are 10 warnings that are never inhibited during take-off: > >There are a further 14 warnings (too numerous to mention here) that >are inhibited from 80 kts until liftoff, but you will be presented >with a full warning once airborne. You're right about the A340, but does anyone know if this also goes for the B767 ? I don't fly jets, but at our flying school we had an "Introduction to Glass Cockpit" course, based on the 767. It was mainly about the FMS, but part of it was about EICAS. We used a 767 manual (from Martinair Holland), but we didn't get to keep it, so I am unable to check it. I only have the notes I made during the Computer Based Training (CBT). On the subject EICAS I wrote: "-Cautions are inhibited at 80 kts -Warnings are inhibited at rotation This means there is no aural, nor a master warning/caution light. The messages do however appear on the EICAS display. At 400' RA OR 20 sec. after rotation, the system resumes normal operation. It now gives the aurals etc. that were inhibited during take-off" To me this seems to apply to ALL aurals. I even think there was a question in the examination preparation about this, and as far as I can remember the fire bell does not sound until 400' RA. Anyone who can confirm this ? Thanks, Daan Vlaskamp The Netherlands vlaskamp@cuci.nl From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rick Hughes (Rick Hughes) Subject: Re: SIA A340s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: iiNet Technologies (Perth, Western Australia) Reply-To: Rick Hughes Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:11 Message-ID: In Article , Bong wrote: >I just finnished reading airbus' press release. In one of their article, >AI wrote that SIA(singapore airlines) will use its A340's in SIA's >singapore-paris route. i remember that SIA cancelled its MD-11 orders >becuase SIA wanted an aircarft to carry a 60000 lbs. in this route, but >during actual test flight showed that a MD-11 can only carry 40000 lbs. >Now, A340-300 has a range of 7300 nm, and paris-sing. is roughly 6600 nm. >I think It would not be possible for the A340 to fly non-stop because of >the strong headwinds. Can someone tell me if I am wrong? I would think they will make it quite comfortably. In Cathay, we operate our A340-200s from Hong Kong to Zurich and comfortably make it, even with the worst of the mid-winter winds against us. >From what I can determine at home here without charts to compare actual distances, the route Hong Kong to Zurich is probably about the same, if not slightly further than the Singapore - Paris leg you refer to. This is because we are forced to head down through either Thailand or Myanmar and therefore fly a much longer track than if we could just fly the Great Circle route up through China and Russian Republics etc. We have just taken delivery (22Jun) of the first of six A340-300E aircraft (certified @ 275T) we will be operating and will most certainly be using them on this route. Rick Hughes Perth Western Australia From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jsteele@AZStarNet.com (Jerry Steele) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Arizona Daily Star - AZSTARNET Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:11 Message-ID: In article Jon Ward writes: >This is not a political comment, but just something I which I found mildly >amusing. >Has anybody else noticed that with the rash of Boeing and MD crashes, the >amount of Airbus bashing has dropped considerably? I will not get drawn >into an argument about which airframer is superior (I have worked on >projects for all three and more), but I feel it emphasises how partisan >people can get about these things. >Also, the number of recent crashes raises some serious questions in itself. >It's starting to look slightly statistically significant. Are air saftey >standards dropping? Is it just bad luck? Have airports suddenly started >employing black cats to cross in front of aeroplanes to give their rescue >people a job? I'm interested in hearing other peoples' views. While I was in an Airbus 340 from Munich to Chicago, just off Newfoundland at 39000 ft we encountered some chop. In my over 25 years of being a passenger this certainly was far from severe. Nonetheless, the crt monitor at the front of the business class section where they display flight data, as well as every seat video display, and the cabin lights flickered violently on and off several times as the turbulence rocked the aircraft. If I were to guess, being an electronic engineer, I'd say it seemed as if the 110 volt power bus was getting hiccups (it seems as if these items would all be powered by that bus or something similar). Either shorts or bad contact somewhere (either of which could conceivably be a fire risk by the way). Hopefully everything in the cockpit is powered by the 28 volt system and were unaffected. Nonetheless, this was unnerving and left me with a poor impression of the A340. Especially since on my way over I had an impeccable, and incredibly enjoyable flight on a 777. Which by the way, had considerably better takeoff acceleration and climb. Now I realize aircraft performance is usually optimized for given airports and air traffic control, so such comparisons may be meaningless. But upon checking the power to weight ratios of the respective aircraft it seems as if the 777 does have far more power than the A340 (both were fully loaded by the way). Any comments on the power glitches observed? From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:12 Message-ID: In article , Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk wrote: > ...the number of recent crashes raises some serious questions in itself. > It's starting to look slightly statistically significant. Are air saftey > standards dropping? Is it just bad luck? Have airports suddenly started > employing black cats to cross in front of aeroplanes to give their rescue > people a job? Related only to the black cats thing, but an interesting story. During WWII, the Air Corps B-29s flew out of airfields in China. These packed-gravel airfields were built by hand by the Chinese, and they needed constant maintenance. As a result, there were always large numbers of Chinese workers on the runways during flight operations. When the B-29s took off, the workers would move to the side of the runway until the planes were gone. Every now and then, one or more Chinese would suddenly dash across the runway directly in front of a B-29 that was speeding along on its takeoff run. There was nothing the B-29 crews could do about this but hold their breath. Sometimes the Chinese workers made it across and sometimes they were hit and killed by the propellers. The reason was interesting. The Chinese believed that if they were having a run of bad luck in their lives, family troubles, financial problems, or whatever, they could rid themselves of this curse by dashing in front of a moving vehicle which, if they timed it right, would kill the evil spirit that was closely following them around. The people working on the runways figured there was no better way to kill an evil spirit than by running over it with a B-29. A B-29 flight engineer told me that the official procedure if they hit one of these workers was to monitor the engine temperature gauges throughout the rest of the takeoff. If they remained normal after the collision, the flight was continued. If the temperature of an engine began to climb higher than the already-red-hot normal temperature, it was assumed that the remains of a Chinese worker were interfering with the airflow, and the flight was aborted after takeoff and the plane would return to the airfield to be cleaned. Grisly, but true. I used footage of one of these incidents in a film I made honoring the 50th Anniversary of the B-29. Sorry this is off the thread and probably in the wrong newsgroup, but the black cats comment reminded me of this. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:12 Message-ID: In article Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk writes: >This is not a political comment, but just something I which I found mildly >amusing. > >Has anybody else noticed that with the rash of Boeing and MD crashes, the >amount of Airbus bashing has dropped considerably? Hey--anytime, any place. I'm game. Having participated in a four-month slugfest back in October, however, I am not keen to rehash the same old issues with people who will not listen or who are incapable of learning. I also don't see how any Douglas crashes would impede such activity. Most of the people happy to bash Airbus design decisions are also more than happy to discuss some of MDC's ah, decisions. :-) The issue is safety, not some juvenile obsession with companies. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:12 Message-ID: Jon Ward wrote: >Also, the number of recent crashes raises some serious questions in itself. >It's starting to look slightly statistically significant. Are air saftey >standards dropping? Is it just bad luck? The very nature of random processes means that several very unlikely things can still happen in rapid succession. If another factor, such as all accident aircraft having a common design feature, were present then I might think something statistically significant is going on. I can remember other years when there seemed to be an abundance of accidents as well, but the number of accidents didn't keep growing. I think "bad luck" is the likely answer. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Thu Jun 27 12:42:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: d.jensen@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CSIRO Date: 27 Jun 96 12:42:12 Message-ID: In article , Jon Ward wrote: >This is not a political comment, but just something I which I found mildly >amusing. > >Has anybody else noticed that with the rash of Boeing and MD crashes, the >amount of Airbus bashing has dropped considerably? I will not get drawn >into an argument about which airframer is superior (I have worked on >projects for all three and more), but I feel it emphasises how partisan >people can get about these things. > >Also, the number of recent crashes raises some serious questions in itself. >It's starting to look slightly statistically significant. Are air saftey >standards dropping? Is it just bad luck? Have airports suddenly started >employing black cats to cross in front of aeroplanes to give their rescue >people a job? I'm interested in hearing other peoples' views. What may appear statistically significant is probably not so. Consider the spate of DC-10 crashes in the late '70's, none of which was actually an inherent design fault. There was o'Hare, where improper maintenance (using a forklift to align the engine) resulted in stresses on the engine mounting bolt, which sheared on takeoff. Then there was the McMurdo Sound Air New Zealand crash, which was due to reprogramming of the autopilot route without informing the crew, and the DC-10 that crashed into a fire tender on the runway at Mexico City. People stayed away from the DC-10 in droves, despite the fact that the only real design fault (faulty rear cargo bay door) had been fixed in the mid '70's. Just goes to show, crashes happen like bunches of bananas. Dennis From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:53 Message-ID: >What may appear statistically significant is probably not so. Consider the >spate of DC-10 crashes in the late '70's, none of which was actually an >inherent design fault. There was o'Hare, where improper maintenance (using a >forklift to align the engine) resulted in stresses on the engine mounting >bolt, which sheared on takeoff. >From the NTSB report on that crash (AA 191, Chicago O'Hare, May 25, 1979): The safety board is also concerned that the designs of the flight control, hydraulic, and electrical systems in the DC-10 aircraft were such that all were affected by the pylon separation to the extent that the crew was unable to ascertain the measures needed to maintain control of the aircraft. ... ... The possibility of pylon failure, while remote, was not impossible. Pylons had failed. Therefore, fault analyses should have been conducted to consider the possible trajectories of the failed pylon, the possibilities of ddamage to aircraft structure, and the effects on the pilot's ability to maintain controlled flight. Since the capability of continued flight was highly probable, the fault analysis might have indicated additional steps or methods which could have been taken to protect those systems essential to continued flight. Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that the design and interrelationship of the essential systems as they were affected by the structural loss of the pylon contributed to this accident. While the improper maintenance caused the engine separation, that was simply a triggering event, which need not have cost 273 lives. The NTSB clearly felt that the design was weak, if not outright faulty. Before commenting further, please check your facts. A good place to start, besides the official reports on this and other crashes, is to search the archives of this newsgroup, which can be found at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@mallard.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Proximity Switches Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:53 Message-ID: In article Al Hrovat writes: ah> I understand that modern aircraft use a magnetic sensor called a ah> proximity switch to determine the position of landing gear, doors, ah> etc. Does anyone know why this arrangement is used instead of a ah> simple mechanical switch? Are the magnetic pick-offs more ah> reliable than a simple switch? The prox switches (in theory) are much more reliable than the older mechanical switches, as they are sealed from the environment and need no adjustment to ensure proper operation. (As opposed to a mechnical switch which must be adjusted to ensure that the switch reads "closed" at the appropriate location in the mechnical travel, depending on the application.) The principle of operation is very simple; the magnetic pickup can sense an change in inductive impedance when the appropriate metal is touching the surface over the pickup. This method is actually quite analagous to the turn-lane sensor loops which are buried in the roadway and tell the traffic light controller that a car is at the intersection. ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gsmoff@Mcs.Net (Gary S. Moffitt) Subject: Re: Proximity Switches Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MCSNet Internet Services Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:54 Message-ID: > I understand that modern aircraft use a magnetic sensor called a proximity > switch to determine the position of landing gear, doors, etc. Does anyone > know why this arrangement is used instead of a simple mechanical switch? > Are the magnetic pick-offs more reliable than a simple switch? Yes, the prox switch is more reliable than a mechanical switch. There are no moving parts to wear, break or require lubrication. There are no electrical contacts to corrode or burn. Some airlines require prox switches instead of mechanical switches in sensitive locations. From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Proximity Switches Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Bodge It & Co. Ltd. Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:54 Message-ID: >I understand that modern aircraft use a magnetic sensor called a proximity >switch to determine the position of landing gear, doors, etc. Does anyone >know why this arrangement is used instead of a simple mechanical switch? >Are the magnetic pick-offs more reliable than a simple switch? My understanding here is that magnetic proximity switches have no moving parts and so are much more reliable. As an example, many house burglar alarms have similar devices fitted to doors, one contact in the door & one in the frame. Opening the door moves the contacts away and "opens" the switch. Simon Ellwood. From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chris Hall Subject: Re: Proximity Switches Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Airborne Display Limited Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:54 Message-ID: In article , Al Hrovat writes >I understand that modern aircraft use a magnetic sensor called a proximity >switch to determine the position of landing gear, doors, etc. Does anyone >know why this arrangement is used instead of a simple mechanical switch? >Are the magnetic pick-offs more reliable than a simple switch? The advantages of a proximity switch over a normal micro switch are many, but the most important advantage is that they are absolutely sealed against the environment. Wheel wells are dirty places, and mechanical switches pick up their share of the muck flying around. Eventually, seals fail and the switch jams. A magnetic reed switch also has a longer operating life than a mechanical switch. The life of the reed can be measured in millions of operations before it is likely to fail. -- Chris Hall From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Turbopro near-instantaneous power (Waterbombers) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:54 Message-ID: Harvey Schmiddlapp XVMIII wrote: >On a turboprop, like the C-130, the engine spins at approximately 13000 >RPM while the prop spins at approximately 1100. When the pilot advances >the power, the angle of the prop blades to the airstream change to and >essentially add lift in the forward direction. The engine as the prop >pulls more power, it signals the fuel system to increase the fuel, thus >the power to substain the 1100 RPM and additional thrust. The near >instantaneous transition from low thust to high thrust is made possible >by the torque generated by the turbines spinning at 13000 RPM. In other >words, the turbines act as a flywheel, storing energy. I think the more salient point that isn't stated is that when more power is requested from a piston engine *or* turboprop equipped variable pitch propellors, THE RPM DOES NOT CHANGE! Nothing has to accelerate or "spool up". The kinetic energy of the turbines doesn't change, so they aren't really acting like a "flywheel". A flywheel is only useful if you extract some kinetic energy from it, thus *slowing* it. All that happens in a piston engine or turboprop is that the prop blades change pitch to produce more thrust, and the fuel system increases fuel flow so that the engine produces more torque at the same RPM. With a turbojet or turbofan, both the turbine and fan shafts must actually accelerate to a higher RPM- which means that they must accelerate- which means their kinetic energy must increase- which takes a little time. > -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:55 Message-ID: On a less-than-serious note.... Under the 'UAL 747' thread, Graeme Cant mentioned the Britannia and early problems with the Proteus turboprop engines. Where have all the engine names gone? :-) 'Proteus' is probably my all time favorite, but 'Dart', 'Olympus', 'Merlin', 'Eland' (a Napier turboprop), and 'Griffon' are all in the running. 'Nene' is right out, though :-) The British are the undisputed champions at naming engines, I think that we Americans gave up the practice after the 'Liberty' engines. But even the British are falling short today- 'Trent', 'Tay', and 'Spey' don't do much to stir the imagination. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jop Vlaskamp Subject: Re: Vortex generators on engine nacells? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:55 Message-ID: At 12:24 24-06-96, you wrote: > I just took my first ride in a 737-400 (I'm typically flying longer >flights on larger planes) and noticed what appears to be a two-hand sized >fin on the fuselage side of the engine.. >What is the purpose of these? Vortex generators etc. usually have to do with stall speed/characteristics. The fins you mentioned are called "strakes". The notes I took during my Aerodynamics ATPL-course say the following on the subject of strakes: " Sorts of strakes: 1) Strakes placed on the fuselage: to maintain the directional control during large slip-angles. 2) Strakes mounted on the tail engine (DC-10): to create a nose-down pitching moment. 3) Strakes on the wing-engines (B737): Reduce the local stall speed in this area at large angles of attack." I know that smaller planes, with which I am more familiar, have similar devices. For example the Piper PA-28-161 Warrior and the Piper Arrow have "stall strips". Those are strips placed on the leading edge of the wing. The airflow becomes a turbulent one when it passes the strip. A turbulent airflow has more energy than a laminar one (I know, it sounds like a contradiction), and therefore "sticks" to the wing better. It prevents the airflow from separating from the wing and thus the part where they are installed from stalling. Often there are stall strips, stall fences, vortex generators etc. installed to prevent the wingtip from stalling before the wing root does. A wing tip stall will make your ailerons ineffective. The wing root stalling first will make sure the aircraft buffets before it stalls: the turbulent airflow hits the elevator. It also helps create the desired nose down movement when the aircraft actually stalls: the negative taillift will disappear when the air, which would normally proceed via the wing to the elevator, changes into a turbulent "chaos". Greetings, Daan Vlaskamp (Dutch CPL) The Netherlands From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Vortex generators on engine nacells? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:55 Message-ID: Maury S. Markowitz wrote: > > I just took my first ride in a 737-400 (I'm typically flying longer > flights on larger planes) and noticed what appears to be a two-hand sized > fin on the fuselage side of the engine. This sticks upward at about 45 > degrees, and was generating a rather noticeable vortex (visible as well > passed through some humid layers on takeoff). > > I later took a tour of the airport (the new Denver abomination) and > noticed a similar fin on a number of planes, including DC-10's and 767's. > What is the purpose of these? The location of the seperation point on the sides of a turbofan nacelle, at high angles of attack, is rather unstable and can degrade the wing's maximum lift coefficient if it moves too far up the nacelle. This effect is strongest for closely coupled nacelles. As the 747's nacelles are fairly far away from the wing, this effect is not strong on this aircraft. Douglas originally discovered this problem on the DC-10 and to fix it, put two "strakes", one on each side of the nacelle, on the DC-10. These strakes fix the seperation point and shed a vortex, which helps improve the maximum lift coefficient of this part of the wing. Boeing discovered the same effect on the 707-700, a 707 reengined with CFM56s. Douglas had the patent for one on EACH side of the nacelle, so Boeing used one only on the inside of the nacelle, to get around the patent. Boeing calls them nacelle chines has the patent on having one per nacelle! ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jis@fpk.hp.com (Jishnu Mukerji) Subject: Re: delta LA-Hong Kong flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Hewlett-Packard New Jersey Laboratories, Florham Park, NJ, USA Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:55 Message-ID: In article , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) writes: |> You have to fly through Taiwan to go to HKG; it's about 500 miles shorter |> to Taipei than to HKG. Hmmm. Last winter when I flew from SFO to Hong Kong by United (747-400) we actually flew over Beijing, not Taipei. It was kind of a pleasant surprize. We also flew over the infamous Kamchatka Peninsula. I still have the route map that the captain drew me of our route. So was this a special case or is that an alternate route that is commonly flown in these post cold war days? -- Jishnu Mukerji Email: jis@fpk.hp.com From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kapoor34@equity.wharton.upenn.edu (Sanjiv Kapoor) Subject: Re: delta LA-Hong Kong flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Pennsylvania Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:55 Message-ID: Jennings Heilig (jheilig@gate.net) wrote: : On 10 Jun 1996, Bong wrote: : > What happend to delta's la-hong kong flight? Did dl abandoned it because : > of the range problem with their md-11's? Also, I once read an article in : > AW&T that Dl will make a stop in taiwan for refuel. Is is the distance of : > la-taiwan and la-hong kong simmilar? : I was told point blank by a Delta MD-11 captain that the MD-11 : is the sole reason DL stopped flying to HKG. The airplane was : simply making too many unscheduled stops in Tokyo for fuel, and : DL had to stop the bleeding. : The same captain told me that as soon as the front office at : DL gets off the mark and orders 777s, the MD-11s will probably : soon be history, or at least relegated to trans-Atlantic routes. The question arises: where does Delta use all of their MD-11s now? They have taken them off HKG, they removed them from India, and they do not fly out of JFK. It's a pity, because they are the only Delta aircraft which have international level business and first-class cabins -- in-seat videos, etc. I quite enjoy flying them whenver I can, but with them out of HKG and India, the chances are getting fewer...! Does anyone know what Delta's plans are for updating their international premium classes on their other LR aircraft (767-300s and L1011s)? Thanks, Sanjiv. From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Delta/American fleet composition Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:56 Message-ID: jnedzel@netcom.com (Jared Nedzel) wrote: >In article Steve Lacker writes: > >[deleted] >>certainly doesn't seem to have happened (a good thing IMHO). In fact, I only >>encountered about 3 Delta MD-11's on the ground at the various airports I've >>hit recently (DFW, Atlanta, Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, Cincinnati, Logan, >>National and a few others). > >Delta mainly uses the MD-11s on transatlantic routes. I'm surprised that >you saw one in Logan -- I've never seen one there. > > Sorry if my wording caused any misunderstanding (which it apparently did...). I was simply listing the airports I've passed through in the last 5 months. I kept an eye out for all types of A/C at all the airports, but I didn't necessarily see any one type at all of the above. If memory serves, I only saw Delta MD-11's at DFW and Atlanta. Thanks to all for the responses... and yes I blew it when I said "ex Trump shuttle". :-) -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: John Harvie/CAM/Lotus Subject: Re: Delta/American fleet composition Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:56 Message-ID: They may be retired from service now, but many of Delta's oldest 727 "shuttles" came from their aquisition of Northeast Airlines, competition for Eastern's shuttle on the Washington, DC - New York - Boston route (plus Portland, ME). Shortly after the buyout, the red and blue Delta insignia began appearing on the "yellowbirds" near the forward doors until the entire aircraft could be painted in Delta's colors. --John (Maine boy and former Northeast frequent flyer) From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta/American fleet composition Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:56 Message-ID: >They may be retired from service now, but many of Delta's oldest 727 >"shuttles" came from their aquisition of Northeast Airlines, competition >for Eastern's shuttle on the Washington, DC - New York - Boston route >(plus Portland, ME). They were all retired long before the Delta Shuttle started. 21 727s appear to have come to Delta as part of the August 1, 1972 acquisition of Northeast, 8 727-100 and 13 727-200 (non-Advanced) versions. The eight -100s consisted of six 727-95 models, built for Northeast, and two unusually designated 727-22/95 models, built to become United N7042U and N7043U but not taken up by United and sold to Northeast instead. Delta unloaded these planes fairly quickly -- two went to VARIG early the next year along with a third in 1974, and the other five left in 1977, three to Tigerair and two to Piedmont. The -200s did a bit better. Eleven were 727-295s delivered new to Northeast, with the other two being 727-291 models which Northeast picked up from Frontier. All lasted until 1982-1983, when the two newest 727-295s went to Pan Am and the other eleven went to Piedmont. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: xuserid@infinex.com Subject: Re: Delta/American fleet composition Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Infinex Telecom Inc. Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:56 Message-ID: I spoke to a Delta 727 pilot who said that some of the Delta 727s were acquired when Delta took over Western Airlines. From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta/American fleet composition Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:56 Message-ID: >I spoke to a Delta 727 pilot who said that some of the Delta 727s were >acquired when Delta took over Western Airlines. True. They are 727-247(A)s and Delta has quite a number of them. You can recognize them by their NnnnnW or NnnnWA registrations (likewise for ex-Western 737s in Delta's fleet). They have nothing to do with the Shuttle, though, and apparently never have. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: A little humour Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:56 Message-ID: > > Mystery owner of a jet-propelled Chevy Impala. The Arizona Highway > > Patrol came upon a pile of smoldering metal embedded in the side of a > > cliff rising above the road at the crest of a curve. Wreckage > > resembled that at an airplane crash, but it was a car--make and model > > unidentifiable at the scene. > > Cute story, but the folks over in alt.folklure.urban will tell you it is > just an urban legend. But perhaps the folks over *here* can provide some hard information about just how much thrust the most powerful JATO units available actually provide, and for how long. In other words, can we debunk the story as impossible as well as merely observing that nobody has ever come up with a traceable^ instance of it happening? (^ - Note how the version that was posted contained no details of date or person and only a state for location. This sort of thing is typical of urban legends, though it's also common that they're told as happening to a specific person who, when located, turns out either not to exist or to have just been telling the story rather than being the person in it.) -- Mark Brader, msb@sq.com| The real trouble with this world of ours is... that SoftQuad Inc., Toronto | it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. --Chesterton My text in this article is in the public domain. From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Hughes Subject: Re: Cubana DC-10 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:56 Message-ID: In article , Steve Howie writes >According to the Cuban government Web page, under Cubana, they indicate >they operate a DC-10 for international flights. Given the less than rosy >relations between the two governments, I wonder if anyone has information >on how Cubana gets their spares for this plane, given that the trade >embargo would probably preclude this sort of dealing? I know the Cubans >were very resourceful in keeping '57 Chevies running by fabricating >spares, but I sincerely hope this philosophy wouldn't extend to a jetliner The Cubana DC10 is French registered and belongs to AOM so I guess the problem doesn't arise! -- Pete Hughes From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rcarpen@dgsys.com (Robert J. Carpenter) Subject: Re: Cubana DC-10 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Digital Gateway Systems Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:57 Message-ID: Steve Howie (showie@uoguelph.ca) wrote: > According to the Cuban government Web page, under Cubana, they indicate > they operate a DC-10 for international flights. Given the less than rosy > relations between the two governments, I wonder if anyone has information > on how Cubana gets their spares for this plane, given that the trade > embargo would probably preclude this sort of dealing? I know the Cubans > were very resourceful in keeping '57 Chevies running by fabricating > spares, but I sincerely hope this philosophy wouldn't extend to a jetliner I saw a DC-10 at FDF in February which had CUBANA on the port side and "AOM" (I think) on the starboard! Thus it would seem that there is some sort of part-time rental arrangement with the French airline Avions d'Outre Mer. Does this help? Bob Carpenter w3otc@amsat.org From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kskc@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Kevin Cheng) Subject: Re: Q: Joined wings Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Reply-To: s925609@minyos.its.rmit.EDU.AU Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:57 Message-ID: "Niels M. Sampath" writes: > In article > D.P.Rhodes@lut.ac.uk "Darren Rhodes" writes: > > Personally I think multi-body aircraft offer a significant cost > > advantage over conventional designs, but they don't reduce the span, > > which is the main concern for the NLA. > > > Just a question from left-field but: why not a return to bi-planes > (albiet swept wings etc.)? Howdy all, Well, I'm currently doing my undergrad thesis on the aerodynamics of joined-wing aircrafts .. and to all indications that I've read and tried model with some software, the joined-wing provides a very strong structure, higher span efficiencies (I read e = 1.1 on some configs believe it or not) amongst other advantages. With good design, the rear wing can utilise the flow pattern coming off the front wing and lower the induced drag, separation on the fuselage is delayed etc etc ... The bi-plane still ends up with high drag whichever way you look at it, but the joined-wing can be optimised, and have high crash- worthiness. Not going to write my entire thesis out here of course :*) Still got a long way to go. Kev -- .------------------------------.---.---------------------------. | --==[ Kevin Cheng ]==-- | | | There are only two types: | | kskc@minyos.its.RMiT.edu.Au |\X/| fighters and targets. | `------------------------------'---`---------------------------' From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rklakakp@alpha2.curtin.edu.au Subject: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Curtin University Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:57 Message-ID: Hello all, I have some questions about high bypass turbofan engines: What proportion of the thrust is generated by the bypass air and what proportion comes from the exhaust gas generated in the core of the engine? I realise this question may not have a simple answer, as the bypass air mixes (next question, how much does it mix?) with the exhaust gas, but give me an estimate anyway. Also, are there any turbofans with more than one fan (not compressor) stages? And while I'm still in question mode, did early commercial jet engines (Comet, 707 etc) use any bypass air, or did it all go through the core? thanks, Joshua Boyd rklakakp@cc.curtin.edu.au posted to rec.aviation.misc and sci.aeronautics.airliners From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Turbopro near-instantaneous power (Waterbombers) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Bodge It & Co. Ltd. Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:57 Message-ID: >On a turboprop, like the C-130, the engine spins at approximately 13000 >RPM while the prop spins at approximately 1100. When the pilot advances >the power, the angle of the prop blades to the airstream change to and >essentially add lift in the forward direction. The engine as the prop >pulls more power, it signals the fuel system to increase the fuel, thus >the power to substain the 1100 RPM and additional thrust. The near >instantaneous transition from low thust to high thrust is made possible >by the torque generated by the turbines spinning at 13000 RPM. In other >words, the turbines act as a flywheel, storing energy. > I've just caught the tail end of this thread here, but what you seem to be describing is the operation of a turboprop/constant speed prop unit. You imply here that advancing the power directly alters the prop blade angle and then the engine compenasates for the momentary speed loss by increasing it's power output and restoring the speed. This is in fact the wrong way round. When the pilot "advances the power", he does just that - increases the engine power. The engine tries to speed up but the Constant Speed Unit (CSU) on the prop senses the speed change and increases the pitch of the prop to maintain the correct engine/prop speeds. Simon Ellwood. From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: Oscillation during flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Your Organization Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:58 Message-ID: >Hi, during a recent ATL-DFW flight, the 727-223 I was riding began a series >of oscillations of increasing size. The first was about 2-3 degrees and the >10th was about 15-20 degrees. I am a bit uncertain of the exact values as >I had no way of precisely measuring the activity. A second set of oscillations >of lesser intensity and duration occurred about 2 minutes later. > Question I have is can anyone give me a good explanation? >I tried to talk to the flight crew but they were gone from the cockpit by >the time I got to the front after arrival. It is always amazing that the flight crew is visible and available following a smooth flight with a good landing. When the flight was bumpy or the landing was not the best, they are always in the cockpit with the door closed on deplaning. If I had to guess it would be that the yaw damper was inoperative and they were manually controlling the dutch roll mode. From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rick Hughes (Rick Hughes) Subject: Re: FT: Virgin interested in Superjumbo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: iiNet Technologies (Perth, Western Australia) Reply-To: Rick Hughes Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:58 Message-ID: Suren Ratwatte wrote: >To the best of my knowledge, even though Airbus claims a common type >rating for the 320/330/340 series, no airline operates it as such. >Lufthansa does it with certain limitations I believe, don't know any >details. >I fly the A300-600 and 310-300. Practically identical flight decks, same >engines and really no difference in handling. >The way most airlines work their scheduling request systems, it's very >unlikely that the situation would arise. Cathay have been operating the A330 and A340 under a common type rating for nearly 12 months now. A good proportion of crew are now "Cross Crew Qualified" and flying both the A330 and A340 in normal "Mixed Fleet Flying" line operations. A pilot can crew an A340 say Zurich to Hong Kong one day, then operate an A330 from Hong Kong to Taipei the next (or any other pattern flown by these types). The only limitation involves flying one type only in any one flying duty period, and the obvious licensing requirements for type recency, line checks etc. Rick Hughes Perth, Western Australia From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: piwh@pcmail.nerc-bas.ac.uk (Paul Whiteman) Subject: Re: What happened to STOL ?(was What happened to the BA146) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: British Antarctic Survey Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:58 Message-ID: In article jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) writes: >Subject: Re: What happened to STOL ?(was What happened to the BA146) >BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca wrote: >>I'm guessing, but wasn't Dash-7 production treminated in favor of >>the Dash-8. I don't think they were both in production at the same time. while the first Dash-8 was delivered to Norontair 23 Oct 84. Why is it that I miss all the bits that interest me!! Last DHC-7 production was either late 1988 or early 1989. Ours is #111 which is Nov 1988. Production of the two overlapped for some years and the 7 was dropped by Boeing for commercial reasons, as was -6 Twin Otter (it -7 filled a niche market which didnt expand quickly enough for Mr Boeing) not terminated in favour of -8. Rgds, Paul (Whiteman) whose views are his and his alone (except where borrowed from someone else!) From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: smcdowell@watcom.on.ca (Steve McDowell) Subject: Re: What happened to STOL ?(was What happened to the BA146) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Watcom International Corporation Reply-To: smcdowell@watcom.on.ca Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:58 Message-ID: In article , Alan Browne wrote: >AFAIK, the only aircraft to "sched" out of the Montreal STOL port were >Twin-Otters (DHC-6). The run was from the old remote parking lot for the >1967 World's Fair in Montreal to Ottawa's ( ... ) airport (an old air force >field near the river, which is now a private field. (Also has Canada's >Aeronautical collection in a new modern museum...well worth the visit!) The airport in Ottawa is at CFB (Canadian Forces Base) Rockcliffe. The airfield isn't used for military purposes anymore. The aeronautical collection is located near one end of the runway (off to the side!). I lived there as a kid. Used to visit the collection when it resided in nearby WWII hangars that were fire traps just waiting to happen. Glad to see the gummink finally coughed up for a proper museum. Steve McDowell From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hedley@netcom.com (Hedley Rainnie) Subject: Re: Northwest 747s Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:58 Message-ID: In article , bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) wrote: >Ok, ok, so I forgot Qantas. They've had 747SP's since 1981. And as far >as Korean Air flying between Seoul and Seattle, that was just an educated >guess. If anyone can prove me wrong on that one, then do it! > FWIW I was on one of Korean Air's 747SP's from SFO to Seoul a couple of weeks ago. I must say this aircraft seems quite old. According to their fleet list, they have 2 747SP's. My return flight was a newer aircraft run by Singapore airlines, a 747-400 megatop. Very fancy and interesting since with the route map on your personal display you can learn quite a bit about where you are and how fast/high you are travelling. Hedley -- hedley@8x8.com | 8x8, Inc. hedley@netcom.com | Santa Clara, CA. (408) 654-0883 From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: hassan@shell.portal.com (hassan monu alam) Subject: Toilets on JAL FC Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data) Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:58 Message-ID: According to the NYT, JAL is installing new toilets in its 747-400 FC cabins. The toilets will have gold plated fawcets, marble-like sinks and be 50% larger than current toilets. Now all we need are bidets to arrive really clean :). Actually I would give an arm for a hot shower. That would make FC completely worth the extra money. -- Hassan Alam From kls Thu Jun 27 12:56:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevem@mail.sydney.net (Steve McGinley) Subject: Re: Fuel management systems? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: First Link Internet Services, Sydney Australia Date: 27 Jun 96 12:56:59 Message-ID: In article , edwardsj@newsfeed.vivanet.com says... > >Hi, > >What kind of fuel management systems are being used in the new aircraft. >I know that older ships just had some analog gauges to show fuel rate. > >Can anyone tell me some of the data that is available to the flight crew >that is calculated from the flow rate i.e. quantities that are shown, >warnings that are given, and what nav units are also tied into.. Also >how much of this is really used by the pilots, what do they really want >to know about the fuel system. > Have recently purchased a video produced by Intelligent TV and Video in the UK, which gives an excellent overview of the 747-400 (CX) including the fuel management systems. Highly recommended. Steve Sydney, Australia