From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter_whiteside@mindlink.bc.ca (PWhiteside) Subject: Re: Smoke Trail Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:49 Message-ID: laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) wrote: >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). See the thread in this newsgroup "Three questions" relating to condensation trails coming off wing tips. What you saw was most likely the result of condensation due to the air pressure being changed as the airflow was modified by the engine cowling. If you'd seen something black coming out of the back of the engine, then you, and the pilot, would have something to be concerned about.. --- peter_whiteside@mindlink.bc.ca From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kf7qz@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Ricky Scott) Subject: Re: Smoke Trail Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:49 Message-ID: Lars A Ewell (laewell@iastate.edu) wrote: : 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? : Lars Ewell Lars, Well what you saw was not smoke but acutally a vortici of super cooled air comming off the tip of the engine strut. I have flown on several types of aircraft and have seen it off of flaps, wing tips engines and all manner of pieces and parts. I bet if you think back it was a really cloudy or rainy day. It happens when the air is humid (full of moisture) and as the speed increases over the part it induces a vortex. This in turn super cools the air causing it to become visible (Clouds) ... that is what you saw. The angle of the take off from about rotation to when they achieve climb angle is just right to cause a vortex to form off the small hole/intake on the engine strut of the 737. Look out on the wingtips some day when its cloudy/humid and you will most likely see the same thing. Hope that helps (I tried to keep it in laymans term) -- Ricky J. Scott I dont speak for my company and they do not speak for me We like it that way and so do their Lawyers. From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rick Hughes (Rick Hughes) Subject: Re: Smoke Trail Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: iiNet Technologies (Perth, Western Australia) Reply-To: Rick Hughes Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:50 Message-ID: In Article , laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) wrote: > 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. You've almost certainly seen a vortice coming off the engine cowling at rotation. The core of the vortice has a lower pressure than surrounding air, consequently lower temperature. With a little humidity in the air, a vapour trail is formed in the vortice, which is most likely what you witnessed on both flights. Rick Hughes Perth Western Australia From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Smoke Trail Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:50 Message-ID: In article , laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) wrote: > 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. I suspect what you saw was water vapor condensing in the very low pressure air coming off the engine nacelle and travelling back over the wing. This is a very common phenomenon, and is usually seen streaming back from wingtips, flap corners, and sometimes over much of the upper surface of the wing. It occurs because the rapid lowering of the air pressure due to the aerodynamic action of the wing, nacelle, etc. rapidly lowers the air's temperature. Under humid conditions, there is enough water vapor in the air to condense into "clouds" as the temperature drops suddenly. The forward motion of the plane makes the "clouds" stream back across the wings or off the wingtips. It's a common sight here in Seattle. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stephen@genesis1.physics.YALE.EDU (Stephen B. Selipsky) Subject: Re: Smoke Trail Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:51 Message-ID: In article laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) writes: > ... > I recently rode on a United Airlines 737 (-300 I think) and I noticed > something peculiar during take-off. Just prior (approx 3 sec) to the > front wheels leaving the ground, a thin (approx 10 cm 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 phenomen[on]? More specifically, > does anyone know what the cause of this is? Not truly knowing the answer, I'll make a physicist's guess: That sounds like moisture ("fog"), not smoke. The wings and especially the engine nacelles perturb the airflow, and the local pressure/temperature changes can cause moisture to condense if the humidity is high enough-- just as fog and dew can form at night when the temperature drops. (Lower pressure over the lift-generating wings, thus lower temperature). It isn't surprising that this occurred around take-off, when the wings' angle of attack and hence pressure differences were likely to have been highest. I have sometimes seen a sheet of fog flowing across a whole airplane wing, evaporating at the back as it returns to ambient pressure. You can look for the same thing to happen with other large pressure changes; for example, when landing flaps or air brakes are deployed, or when military planes perform extreme maneuvers and make vapor condense in wing tip vortices. (Not to be confused with aerobatic planes intentionally attaching smoke generators.) Note that real smoke lasts a while, but your condensation is momentary. Vapor trails left by stratospheric planes are somewhat different; I believe the air must be "supercooled" above 100% humidity, and then engine exhaust can provide nucleation centers for ice crystals. Anyone out there know for sure? --- Stephen B. Selipsky stephen@genesis1.physics.yale.edu Yale University Physics Dept. Phone: 203/432-6923 P.O. Box 208120 Fax: 203/432-6175 New Haven, CT 06520-8120 Home: 203/782-2065 From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jtalbot@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (jts) Subject: Re: Smoke Trail Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Information Services, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:51 Message-ID: In article , laewell@iastate.edu says... > > >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? At high speed the increased speed of the airflow reduced the density of the air. This in turn lowers the condensation temperature of the water vapour in the air. The result is a stream of "smoke" which basically is a cloud. The speed of the aircraft at rotation precludes any type of engine emission coming from the front of the engine, any combustion smoke would come of out the nozzle. This can also be seen from other parts of the wing on aircraft, especially around the ends of the flaps which the pressure coefficients are high. I also remember taking-off at DFW in an AA DC-10 during a storm with low cloud. Once the aircraft reached a reasonable speed a thin "cloud" formed over the wing root and thickened considerable at rotation when the lift was increased. This was also seen on other aircraft on the day. Justin Talbot-Stern University of Sydney jtalbot@extro.ucc.su.oz.au From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: FYI, B757 crash at Bermuda. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:52 Message-ID: Boeing has a useful mind-set of considering that accidents are a chain of events which terminate in something nasty. Brake the chain anywhere prior to the termination, and the something nasty becomes much more benign. It is easy to blame EITHER the equipment or the pilots; it is more difficult to understand the interelationships. Consider what we have been told/know about this incident: 1) The pitot probe was left uncovered for several days prior to the flight. 2) Standard practice is to cover the pitot probe if the aircraft is not to be flown for 'some' time. 3) The Dominician Republic has a humid atmosphere; which MAY result in condensation forming inside of the pitot probe. 4) The pilot observed anomolous airspeed indications during the takeoff roll 5) Differential pressure between the pitot tube and static port forms the basis of airspeed calculation 6) If the pitot tube is obstructed, then the differential pressue will increase with altitude resulting in an indication of higher airspeed. 7) Airplanes come apart at high speeds; and the overspeed warning is designed to call the pilots attention to this in a clear fashion 8) The overspeed alert cannot be silenced in the usual manner (by acknowledging the alert). It can only be silenced by correcting the situation (slowing down). 9) A stall is caused by disrution of airflow over the wings. If the aircraft's nose is excessively high, the airflow will be disrupted. The angle of attack (the angle of the aircraft centerline relative to actual direction of travel) is deteced by an Angle-of-Attack sensor (AOA for short) which is a vane like device which 'flies' in the airstream. If airspeed is sufficient, then the AOA will stay within limits. If the angle of attack vs airspeed is insufficient, then the AOA (as measured by the sensor) will be come excessive and generate a stall warning. For western aircraft, this is a mechanical vibrator located on the control columns (this is obviously not relivent to the A320 and later aircraft which do not have columns). 10) Failure of any instrument or system necessary for flight is brought to the attention of the flight crew through 'flight deck indications.' The 'flight deck indications' for a blocked pitot tube do not, at first analysis, appear to be related to the fundamental failure. 11) ALL Part 25 aircraft are required to have a totally seperate means of measuring and displaying critical flight data to the flight crew. This includes airspeed and altitude. In the event of TOTAL failure of the electronic diplays, this information from the 'standby instruments' is still available. If there is ANY difference between the data displayed between the Captain and First Officer, the information from the standby instruments is intended to assist in determining which display is actually correct. 12) The flight crew experienced simultaneous stall and overspeed indications. In reacting to the overspeed warning, the nose was pitched up to decrease the airspeed. This increased the angle of attack, deepening the stall. 13) At some point the aircraft ceased to have sufficient airflow over the wings and stopped flying. The role of the NTSB is to look at the aircraft design, maintenance practices, flight crew training, regulator oversight, and any other factors which they consider relivent. From this they will prepare their conclusions as to the sequence of events which ended when a flyable aircraft found its way to the bottom of the ocean. Any attempts to appoint blame, or exonerate any participent prior to the release of the report is speculation, opinion, conjecture, blowing smoke, etc. Speculation on how this chain could have been broken is a normal part of the industry retrospection which occurs following any accident. Establishing blame is best left to the legal system. Brian From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Adam Dobrzycki Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:52 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. I may be wrong, but I believe that spacing when a "light" is following a "heavy" has to be bigger than in the case of two "heavies" chasing one another. Is that correct? If yes, that raises an interesting question: does this whole thing (upgrade of a 757 to the "heavy" category) mean that spacing between 757 and other, truly "heavy" aircraft will be now REDUCED? That seems (at least to me) to be potentially dangerous for the 757... Could anyone more knowledgeable comment on that? Thanks - Adam ======================================================================== Adam Dobrzycki AXAF Science Center adam@head-cfa.harvard.edu Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics ======================================================================== From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: amb@bronze.lcs.mit.edu (andrew m. boardman) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Quiche Eaters Anonymous Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:53 Message-ID: Gary S. Moffitt wrote: >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. This is incorrect; IIRC, the US definition is an aircraft with a gross weight (MGTOW, I think) of 300,000+ lbs., while the ICAO definition differs slightly and immaterially. Although the idea was on the table, the B757 was not actually classed as a "heavy". Instead, exceptions specific to the B757 have been added all over 7110.65 (FAA Order 7110.65, a.k.a. the "ATC Bible") -- in just about every situation dealing with wake turbulence, "heavy jet" has been changed to "heavy jet or B-757". Thus, following aircraft still get "heavy" seperation, although B757s get normal "large" category seperation behind "heavies". The difference may be immaterial, but than again, they still get to go to DCA. :-) Should anyone have interest, I keep a copy of 7110.65 (without diagrams, though) at http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~amb/aviation/7110/index.html. Most of the seperation stuff is in 3-10 and 5-5 (chapter-section). Factoid of the week: Air Force One never gets called "heavy". I guess it's too undignified or something... andrew From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ability@zetnet.co.uk (Joe Curry) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:53 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. Talking about wake vorticies. The recent decision to decrease the gap for following aircraft from 60 to 30 miles might not come into it. But at speeds 550 mph etc, there might be some affect?. -- ability@zetnet.co.uk _|_ Joe Curry --o--O--o-- >From the shadow of North Berwick Law in East Lothian, "Bonnie Scotland" Edinburgh Airport is Scotland's fastest growing. Insist on flights to EDI. Visit the Museum of flight at East Fortune Airfield. Tel 01620 880308 From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Hughes Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:53 Message-ID: In article , Gerard Foley writes >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. > At Heathrow tonight a Sabena 737 pilot got a right telling-off for declining to take off close behind a 757. He was told that in the UK 757s are not considered to be heavy and that 2 minute separation was not necessary. The pilot in the aircraft behind the next 757 further down the queue immediately requested two minute separation as well! -- Pete From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "B." <70263.237@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:54 Message-ID: It is my understanding that on a "typical" high bypass turbofan approx 75% of the thrust is from the fan stage. Comets, EARLY 707's had no fan, pure jet. Of course fuel was 12 cents per gallon, and there weren't 60 departures per hour either. -- .............................. From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert & Linda Wilson Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: wilsonr@tor.hookup.net Reply-To: wilsonr@tor.hookup.net Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:54 Message-ID: rklakakp@alpha2.curtin.edu.au wrote: > 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? As a first approximation you can assume that the thrust ratio is in proportion to the bypass ratio. i.e. If you have a 4:1 bypass ratio 80% will come from the fan and 20 % from the core. > (next question, how much does it mix?) with the exhaust gas, > but give me an estimate anyway. If the engine has separate hot and cold nozzles like on the P&W JT9D or ROLLS RB211-524 you will have zero mixing. On engines with mixers, i.e. the fan and core streams are mixed and ejected through a common final nozzle like ROLLS RB211-535E4 mixing numbers can be of the order of 70% with a well designed mixer. This gives a worthwhile reduction in noise and specific fuel consumption > Also, are there any turbofans with more than one fan (not > compressor) stages? The Pegasus engine (Harrier Jump Jet) has a multi stage fan. > 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? Comets were originally engined with RR Avons - zero bypass. The 707's bought by BOAC were engined with RR Conways. These, I think, were the first bypass engines in comercial service, however the bypass level was very low by today's standards. Less tha 0.5 if my memory serves me right. Regards Rob Wilson ex RR and P&W performance. From kls Wed Jul 3 01:23:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Date: 03 Jul 96 01:23:55 Message-ID: Regarding thrust generated by turbofan engines, I don't have exact figures, but for high byass engines (PW4000, GE90, etc) the majority of the thrust comes from the fan. The main purpose of the core (high compressor/high turbine) is to generate enough horsepower to turn the fan. The lower the bypass ratio, the more excess thrust is available after hp is taken out to turn the fan. As far as I know, most, if not all, military turbofan engines (F100, F110, F404, etc) have 2 or more fan stages. This is related to the above, since the fan is pre-compressing the air that goes thru the core and will eventually be used as propulsive force. Hope that helps. JR From kls Sun Jul 7 14:08:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gclst1+@pitt.edu (Grant C Lynde) Subject: Re: UAL 747? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Pittsburgh Date: 07 Jul 96 14:08:59 Message-ID: In article , Mike Bates wrote: >In article >lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) writes: [Mr. Stone says that there aren't any gates numbered 13 of which he is aware] >There's a K13 at ORD. Flew out of that gate earlier today. There is also one at PIT, A13 to be exact. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:08:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lestroyens@aol.com (LesTroyens) Subject: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: lestroyens@aol.com (LesTroyens) Date: 07 Jul 96 14:08:59 Message-ID: Anyone with information about the following 2 mishaps? F-GDUA UTA w/o 3/16/85 Paris CDG F-GCBC Air France w/o 12/2/85 Rio de Janeiro I have been wondering about these for years and any data would be much appreciated. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:08:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 07 Jul 96 14:08:59 Message-ID: >Anyone with information about the following 2 mishaps? A little bit more, but not much. >F-GDUA UTA w/o 3/16/85 Paris CDG Destroyed by fire. (747-3B3 sn 22870 ln 573) >F-GCBC Air France w/o 12/2/85 Rio de Janeiro Overran the runway and damamaged beyond economic repair at Rio-Galeao. I can't find the name of GIG (Rio's main airport) but that doesn't sound right. I can't find it in my atlas, either, so I don't know where it really is. (747-228B(C) sn 22427 ln 485) -- 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 Sun Jul 7 14:09:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dkhodges@aol.com (Dkhodges) Subject: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dkhodges@aol.com (Dkhodges) Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:00 Message-ID: A question to those who know much more than I about the airline industry: Why is it that aerial re-fuelling, which has gained wide acceptance as a military technology has not gained the same acceptance in the civiian sector. It seems a reasonable way to fly longer routes with less expensive aircraft, and perhaps a lucrative field for a "tanking" service as well. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Chilukuri) Subject: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:00 Message-ID: Delta Flt 1288, and MD-88 flight from Pensacola to Atlanta had the port engine fly apart during takeoff ground roll. Photographs in a local newspaper suggest that the engine threw a fan blade. The inlet appears to have been sliced at a station plane, with corresponding gash on the fuselage. The undamaged first stage of the booster is clearly visible. I believe that the JT8D engine has kevlar blade containment on the fan case, but not in the inlet. Does anyone know whether the fuselage is locally beefed up to absorb the energy of a blade impact? FARs require all components to remain on the engine, even after a blade-out event. The inlet has clearly been severed and has departed the aircraft during the Flt 1288 accident. Krish Chilukuri PS: What in the world is that large elliptical structure that is laying on the ground, just ahead of the fire truck? PPS: Mary Shafer - We've never met, but --- were you at the Joint Propulsion Conference last week? I thought I saw you walk past me in the parking lot on the last day. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:00 Message-ID: >Delta Flt 1288, and MD-88 flight from Pensacola to Atlanta had the port >engine fly apart during takeoff ground roll. >Photographs in a local newspaper suggest that the engine threw a fan blade. >The inlet appears to have been sliced at a station plane, with corresponding >gash on the fuselage ... Two passengers (out of 142, a full load), a mother and her son, were killed by the debris. Five more people were injured, though it's not clear whether any were injured by debris or all of the injuries were from the evacuation. The failure occurred almost immediately after spoolup and the plane stopped ~1200 feet down the runway. The press reported that the JT8D is used on a variety of other types of planes, but my somewhat cynical view of the press was unfulfilled until early this morning, when CNN noted that the JT8D is the engine type used on ValuJet's fleet. (Never mind that, except for a couple of MD-80s which ValuJet never operated, they are *very* different versions of the JT8D.) -- 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 Sun Jul 7 14:09:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pichon Subject: Re: Cubana DC-10 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: gs-evd Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:00 Message-ID: In fact AOM is not Avions d'Outre Mer but Air Outre Mer. It's just a detail. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dany@world-net.sct.fr (Jean-Marie Dany) Subject: Re: Cubana DC-10 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: worldnet.sct.fr Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:00 Message-ID: In article , showie@uoguelph.ca says... >According to the Cuban government Web page, under Cubana, they indicate >they operate a DC-10 for international flights ... The aircraft is operated by a french company called AOM, situated in paris Orly. They also use Cuban pilots on this French registered aircraft !! From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Graham Glen Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Ain't nobody here but us chickens Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:01 Message-ID: In article , Robert & Linda Wilson writes >> 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? > >Comets were originally engined with RR Avons - zero bypass. The 707's >bought by BOAC were engined with RR Conways. These, I think, were the >first bypass engines in comercial service, however the bypass level was >very low by today's standards. Less tha 0.5 if my memory serves me right. > Just for the sake of completeness, Comets started life with DH Goblin engines. Graham -- Graham Glen graham@irving.demon.co.uk ".. and it always was possible to measure the distance between so-called management and the so-called creative by the time it took for a memo to go in one direction and a half-brick to come back in the other." Dennis Potter From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wohlers@hdz-ima.rwth-aachen.de (Wolfgang Wohlers) Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: RWTH -Aachen / Rechnerbetrieb Informatik Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:01 Message-ID: Hallo ! > 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. I will try, though I am not sure about it: Today turbofans have bypass ratios of about 7. If you say that the change in velocity is about the same for bypass and core air (this is not exact of course) you get 7/8 of the thrust through the bypass and 1/8 thruogh the core air. I am not sure how much faster the core air is, but I think most the thrust is provided by the bypass air. > Also, are there any turbofans with more than one fan (not >compressor) stages? Not to my knowledge. > 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? They were turbojet and didn't have any bypass air. Gruss Wolfgang From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:01 Message-ID: In article , Robert & Linda Wilson wrote: > >If the engine has separate hot and cold nozzles like on the P&W JT9D or >ROLLS RB211-524 you will have zero mixing. The older RB211-524C/D found on the B747-200/300 has zero mixing, but the newer RB211-524G/H found on the B747-400 and the B767-300 does mix the bypass and core flows before exhaustion. >On engines with mixers, i.e. >the fan and core streams are mixed and ejected through a common final >nozzle like ROLLS RB211-535E4 mixing numbers can be of the order of 70% >with a well designed mixer. This gives a worthwhile reduction in noise >and specific fuel consumption > However, the engine becomes heavier, and there is more drag. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ability@zetnet.co.uk (Joe Curry) Subject: Gliders and Radar Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:01 Message-ID: I have just watched a UK programme that highlights the fact that gliders are invisible to radar. Evidently there have been a number of near misses, the most recent being an A310 out of MAN that had to go into a dive to avoid a collision. There is no legal enforcement for gliders to carry radios and ATC have been badgering the CAA to act before a catastrophe takes place. Surely a glider could be fitted with a radar reflector? Even if the glider had radio contact with ATC, they would not be absolutely sure of it,s position. What about hang gliders? All that lies between safety and disaster is a piece of fabric and a body. The same can be said about micro lights. Can they be detected on radar? -- ability@zetnet.co.uk _|_ Joe Curry --o--O--o-- >From the shadow of North Berwick Law in East Lothian, "Bonnie Scotland" Edinburgh Airport is the UK's fastest growing. Insist on flights to EDI. Visit the Museum of flight at East Fortune Airfield. Tel 01620 880308 From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rjn@csn.net (Bob Niland) Subject: Re: ValuJet Crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Colorado SuperNet Reply-To: rjn@csn.net Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:01 Message-ID: Mark Bell (msb@SEI.CMU.EDU) wrote: > 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. Although ValueJet's corporate culture may have made them the most likely candidate for an oxygen generator incident, I have to wonder if the proximate cause of the accident won't actually turn out to be illiteracy. It's easy to imagine that the precision of terminology found nearly world-wide in cockpits and ATC does not extend to contract techs or cargo hangers, and that a sequence something like this made it possible for live, un-safetied oxygen generators to get on board: - generators removed and marked "expired" - "expired" was re-written as "used" - "used" was assumed to be "discharged" If any non-English speakers were in the chain of custody, this process could have taken even fewer steps. What standards, if any, apply to reporting on the status of these generators? If random local colloquial speech is used, this accident has been just waiting to happen for a long time, to any airline that carries "expired" OGs as cargo. Regards, 1001-A East Harmony Road Bob Niland Suite 503 Internet: rjn@csn.net Fort Collins Unless otherwise specifically stated, Colorado 80525 USA expressing personal opinions and NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Subject: Re: Turbopro near-instantaneous power (Waterbombers) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:02 Message-ID: Regarding "instantaneous thrust" due to free wheeling of the core enigne: With advances in computer logic, it is possible to do the same thing on a tubofan engine as well. There are turbofans in production that do just that. They use the variable geometry vanes in the high compressor to "free wheel" the core during throttle decel transients. This allows a quicker re-accel and a quicker re-establishment of take-off thrust. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtuttle@ciesin.org Subject: Eastwind 737 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:02 Message-ID: An Eastwind 737 on approach to Richmond VA experienced an uncommanded rudder input on 9 June. Early reports were that the standby actuator was "mis-rigged". I think Aviation Week has an article in its recent edition...but mine has (as usual) not shown up yet. The New York Times has an article in Today's edition (available on the web too). Dale Tuttle From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:02 Message-ID: This discussion seems the appropriate place to relate an incident that occurred on a recent flight I was aboard. We were departing DFW in the usual line of 5-7 A/C at the hammerhead, and I was observing the activities on the runway. All aircraft in line at this time were 727-200's, MD-8x's, and one MD-90 (the plane I was on). In all cases, the next plane in line would turn onto the centerline shortly after the preceeding A/C had begun its roll, but would not release brakes and accelerate until well after the preceeding A/C was airborne... with one exception. MY flight! When the 727 ahead of us began its roll, I expected our pilot to line up, and then wait about another minute. Instead, we turned onto the centerline about the time the previous plane rotated, and IMMEDIATELY began accelerating on our own roll. The last time I saw the preceeding 727, it still had the main gear on the ground after rotating, so we were undoubtedly rolling before the preceeding A/C was off the runway (I could hear our engines spool up even before we were actually centered on the runway). I thought that this was a bit too close, even though a 727 is not a "heavy" (although I don't know if the "heavy" regulations apply to takeoff or not). In fact, it was indeed one of the roughest take-off and climb-outs I've ever been on- especially since the weather was clear and calm. Any speculations as to why this would have been done? -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:02 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: 07 Jul 96 14:09:02 Message-ID: In article , Pete Hughes wrote: > > At Heathrow tonight a Sabena 737 pilot got a right telling-off for > declining to take off close behind a 757. He was told that in the UK > 757s are not considered to be heavy and that 2 minute separation was not > necessary. The pilot in the aircraft behind the next 757 further down > the queue immediately requested two minute separation as well! Last year we were filming at the rainwater runoff ponds for Heathrow, some of which have become bird sanctuaries (we were making a film for the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) on air transportation and the environment). The ponds are directly below the final approach path for one of the runways. The planes passed overhead perhaps 200-300 feet up on their way to the threshold. Every time a 747 went over the pond, the wake vortices whipped through the trees with a most eerie sound and whipped up waterspouts off the surface of the water. Then a BA 757 went over, and it did exactly the same thing. There were no "effects" in the trees or on the water from 737s, A-320s, etc. I tend to side with the Sabena pilot in this case. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jim.tilbey@zetnet.co.uk (Jim Tilbey) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:02 Message-ID: In message Pete Hughes writes: > In article , Gerard Foley > writes > >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. > At Heathrow tonight a Sabena 737 pilot got a right telling-off for > declining to take off close behind a 757. He was told that in the UK > 757s are not considered to be heavy and that 2 minute separation was not > necessary. The pilot in the aircraft behind the next 757 further down > the queue immediately requested two minute separation as well! According to the Manual of Air Traffic Services Pt1 the B757 is still classified as a Medium in the UK. The only time it is treated differently is for final approach vortex spacing when if a Medium is following a Medium if the lead a/c is a B757 the spacing is increased from 3 to 4 miles. -- Jim Tilbey Kirkwall, Orkney, UK jim.tilbey@zetnet.co.uk From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael Page Subject: A vortice (was Re: Smoke Trail) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Department of Mathematics, Monash University Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:03 Message-ID: Rick Hughes (Rick Hughes) wrote: > > > > You've almost certainly seen a vortice coming off the engine cowling > at rotation. The core of the vortice has a lower pressure than > surrounding air, consequently lower temperature. With a little > humidity in the air, a vapour trail is formed in the vortice, which is > most likely what you witnessed on both flights. This is the second article in a row that has talked about a "vortice". Is this really a technical term for a special type of vortex found in aircraft flow, or do the posters just not realise that the singular of vortices is "vortex"? Michael -- Michael Page ---------------------- Mailto:map@hal.maths.monash.edu.au Mathematics Department --------------- Phone/Fax: +61 3 9905 4486/3870 Monash University ---------------- ObMotto: Non carborundum illegitimi Australia ----------------- ObURL: http://www.maths.monash.edu.au/~map From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geno@hoft160.ho.att.com (-E.RICE) Subject: Spelling of "vortex" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lucent Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:03 Message-ID: Moderator, PLEASE post a little note informing writers of the spelling of the v-word: singular: vortex plural: vortexes or vortices (ref: American Heritage Dictionary). I don't know British usage, but I suspect the Latin plural may be preferred. Geno Rice From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin@bs33n.staffs.ac.uk Subject: interesting landing - runway switch at 800ft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Staffs University, UK Reply-To: entmlf@staffs.ac.uk Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:03 Message-ID: Hi I recently landed at Frankfurt in an A320, and had been allowed to sit in the cocpit. There are two parallel runways, and we were cleared to land on the left one. At about 800 ft, the pilot banked to the right, and lined up with the right hand runway. A good landing followed. After landing I asked about the late switch, and they said that the right hand runway is closer to the terminal, and you don't have to wait to cross the other runway. I had had headphones on but had missed the conversation - evidently atc had 'offered' the change at '800 ft' and it was 'fun to change, and we'd get to the gate faster'. It WAS fun to watch, and I don't even know if passengers in the back noticed. I'm sure that _I_ would have been worried about a large bank whilst descending towards the ground if I'd been in the back! Maybe I'd just have thought there was a bad crosswind? Do you think that '800 ft' to quote the pilot is a reasonable height to switch runways at? Martin From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:03 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: 07 Jul 96 14:09:03 Message-ID: Jop Vlaskamp wrote: > " Sorts of strakes: > 1) Strakes placed on the fuselage: to maintain the directional control > during large slip-angles. Actually, fuselage strakes are for maintaining directional control at high angles of attack (DC-9-50, MD80 and MD87) > 2) Strakes mounted on the tail engine (DC-10): to create a nose-down > pitching moment. The DC-10 #2 engine doesn't have strakes - I think you are getting this confused with the MD80 and MD87, which do have strakes on the engine nacelles. > 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. No, stall strips do just the opposite. They lower the angle of attack that that part of the wing stalls at, to produce a better stall, predictable stall pattern, compared to the unmodified wing. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rjw@atc.dra.hmg.gb (Richard Weatherill) Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: DRA Malvern, England Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:03 Message-ID: Steve Lacker wrote: >On a less-than-serious note.... >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. There are only so may rivers in the UK, so the names are bound to get a bit boring after a while - 'Dart', 'Nene' and 'Trent' are all English rivers; 'Tay' and 'Spey' Scottish ones. 'Tyne' and 'Avon' are two others that spring to mind (so to speak!). 'Spey' certainly stirs my imagination - but then I'm rather partial to single malt Whisky. Richard From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Philip Morten" Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: IBM UK Laboratories, Hursley Park, England. Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:04 Message-ID: Steve Lacker wrote: > > 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. British manufacturers named their engines like this: Rolls-Royce Piston engines Birds of prey Condor, Kestrel, Falcon Gas turbines Rivers Derwent, Nene, Tay Bristol Mythology Jupiter, Pegasus, Hercules Napier Piston engines Edged weapons Sabre, Rapier, Javelin Gas turbines Deer etc Gazelle, Eland Metropoliton Vickers Precious stones Beryl, Sapphire Armstrong Siddeley Piston engines Cats Cheetah, Lynx Gas turbines Snakes Adder, Viper de Havilland Gas turbines G* Goblin, Ghost, Gyron As these all eventually merged into Rolls Royce all we get today are rivers. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:04 Message-ID: > Where have all the engine names gone? :-) RR named their piston engines after birds of prey (Merlin, Griffon, Eagle, etc.). Turbojets and turbofans were/are named after major rivers in the British Isles. Hence, Avon, Tay, Spey, etc. Some RR turboshafts are named after precious stones (Gem). Bristol engines were named after Greek mythological symbols (Orpheus, Pegasus, Proteus, Olympus, etc.). However, RR bought Bristol in 1964 and this ended. When RR had financial troubles they stopped naming for a while (RB207, RB211, etc.), but have restarted this (Tay, Trent, etc.). However, they have now used several names twice - Tay and Trent. I think they are running out of rivers... (how about a RR Humber or Severn?) Also, many new RR engines have been developed in partnerships and hence, get numbers (RR-Turbomeca RTM322, BMW/RR BR710, IAE V2500, etc.). P&W used stinging insect names for piston engines - Wasp, Hornet, Yellow Jacket. The JT3/J-57 was originally the Turbo Wasp, but this dissapeared and then everything became JTx and now everthing is PWxxxx. GE never has named engines and Curtiss-Wright piston engines were always windstorms (Cyclone, Whirlwind, etc.). Personally, I like Turbomeca's names - Arriel, Astazou, Makila, Artouste, etc. I have read that these are peaks in the French Pyrenees, but I don't know this for a fact. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jul 7 14:09:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: riffraff@eskimo.com (David R. Hendrickson) Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Seattle - It's not Hell, but you can see it from here! Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:04 Message-ID: In article , Steve Lacker wrote: > On a less-than-serious note.... > > 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. hey, i like "Spey"! even if it is a leaky s.o.b. :) dave David R. Hendrickson riffraff@eskimo.com Cogito Ergo Zoom - I think, therefore I drive From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:04 Message-ID: In article , Steve Lacker wrote: > 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. While these names don't mean much to us here in the US, they have a little different connotation in England, as they are all names of fairly significant rivers. The British love their waterways (as a frequent user of canal boats in England, I can understand this), and naming things after them perhaps carries a little more meaning over there. They also do a nice job of naming their planes at British Airways. The 747s are named after cities, the 757s are named after castles, I'm not sure what the 767s, A-320s, and 737s are named after, and the 777s are named after famous aviation figures. I am disappointed, however, that there seems to be no plan at BA to name a 777 after R.J. Mitchell, the designer of my favorite airplane, the Supermarine S-6b, and of course, the Supermarine Spitfire. The US carried the engine-naming tradition through the demise of the piston engine, with the Wasp and Whirlwind series of engines from Pratt & Whitney and Wright. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com Subject: re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:04 Message-ID: Steve Lacker wrote:- >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. Rolls Royce name(d) their jet engines after rivers ie, Conway (VC10,707), Spey (1-11, Phantom) etc. Personnally I think Trent is quite a classy name for their most powerful engine. Don't ask me where the river actually is :) From kls Sun Jul 7 14:09:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: What happened to STOL ?(was What happened to the BA146) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 07 Jul 96 14:09:05 Message-ID: In article piwh@pcmail.nerc-bas.ac.uk (Paul Whiteman) writes: >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. > Perhaps someone who was at DHC at the time can help me out here. The last dozen or so -7 airframes were built as 'white tails', with no customer orders. All references to these aircraft seem to quote a date of construction very close to the final delivery date to the eventual customer. I believe they were structurally complete long before then. So what is the official 'policy' on white tails ?. If an airframe is completed then stored for some years, what production date is it given. Airbus had a number of unsold A300s and A310s some years ago. Do these have official production dates later than their actual construction too. regards Brian Maddison From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Rudi Vavra" Subject: Re: FYI, B757 crash at Bermuda. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Goodfox Pty. Ltd. Reply-to: flying@ozemail.com.au Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:54 Message-ID: Brian A. Reynolds wrote: > 9) A stall is caused by disrution of airflow over the wings. If > the aircraft's nose is excessively high, the airflow will be > disrupted. The angle of attack (the angle of the aircraft > centerline relative to actual direction of travel) is deteced by > an Angle-of-Attack sensor (AOA for short) which is a vane like > device which 'flies' in the airstream. If airspeed is sufficient, > then the AOA will stay within limits. If the angle of attack > vs airspeed is insufficient, then the AOA (as measured by the > sensor) will be come excessive and generate a stall warning. WRONG! The AOA is the angle between the chord of the wing and the relative airflow. The AOA can be exceeded at ANY airspeed and the airplane will STALL at ANY airspeed once a critical AOA has been exceeded. This is important. You CAN stall an airplane at any airspeed. > 12) The flight crew experienced simultaneous stall and overspeed > indications. In reacting to the overspeed warning, the nose > was pitched up to decrease the airspeed. This increased the > angle of attack, deepening the stall. > 13) At some point the aircraft ceased to have sufficient airflow > over > the wings and stopped flying. The aircraft stopped flying AS SOON AS it stalled. It doesn't matter how deep the stall is, after you stall a wing, lift drops dramatically. The plane was probably kept in a stall unintentionally, as the overspeed warning was still sounding. Usually if you stall an airplane and hold it in a stall, it will drop one wing quite suddenly and dramatically. In all probability, the airliner went inverted, or close to it after it stalled.Obviously there was not enough time and not enough altitude to recover from this unusual attitude in this case. All the above is pure speculation based on my aeronautical knowledge. I'll wait for the official findings in this case. Rudi -- Rudi Vavra http://www.ozemail.com.au/~flying (Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines) -- <> From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: stevem@mail.sydney.net (Steve McGinley) Subject: Re: Toilets on JAL FC Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: First Link Internet Services, Sydney Australia Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:54 Message-ID: In article , hassan@shell.portal.com says... > >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. > It was also reported in Sydney that the new toilets will have a window?? Steve Sydney, Australia From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: Michael Zaller Subject: Re: Toilets on JAL FC Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Hooked Online Services Reply-To: mikoza@hooked.net Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:55 Message-ID: hassan monu alam wrote: > > 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, Rumbold was working on a lavatory design with a bidet. I believe they're being installed on a couple of Boeing jets for Saudia. No kidding. M Zaller From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:55 Message-ID: Few months ago, Airbus threatened to sue Boeing for falsely claiming the A340 could only cruise at around 0.78 Mach. A few days ago, I browsed through the schedules of three airlines (Lufthansa [LH], Cathay Pacific [CX] and Singapore [SQ]). I'm not really trying to make a point here. It's just some trivial information. Here's the comparison: LH: I found Frankfurt-Osaka being only route on which LH uses both the 747-400 and the A340-300. LH allotted the same gate-to-gate time for both aircraft types. CX: 747 340 difference Hong Kong - Toronto*: 17:15 17:45 0:30 Toronto - Hong Kong*: 18:35 18:45 0:10 Hong Kong - Rome+: 12:40 13:25 0:45 Rome - Hong Kong+: 12:20 12:40 0:20 Hong Kong - Jakarta: 4:15 4:20 0:05 Jakarta - Hong Kong: 4:30 4:35 0:05 Hong Kong - Manila: 1:50 1:55 0:05 Manila - Hong Kong: 2:00 2:05 0:05 * The Toronto flight makes a technical stop in Anchorage. + CX does not regularly operate the B747 to Rome. Also, CX flights to Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and Bangkok are five to ten minutes slower on the A330 than on the B747. The gate-to-gate time for these three destinations varies from 2:45 to 3:55. SQ: 747 340 difference Singapore - Melbourne*: 7:00 7:25 0:25 Melbourne - Singapore*: 7:40 8:15 0:35 Singapore - Sydney+: 7:15 7:40 0:25 Sydney - Singapore+: 7:55 8:20 0:25 * The Melbourne flight is currently being served with the A340, exclusively. + The Sydney flight will be effective as of July 1. SQ's schedule shows all its flight to Jakarta and Bangkok having the same gate-to-gate time, irrespective of the aircraft types. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dave lawson <71202.1577@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Proximity Switches Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Dave Lawson Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:55 Message-ID: Ed Hahn wrote: > > 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. > The key here is to remember that the output is analog, not digital. That is to say, it is a sensor, NOT a switch. The working range of the sensor is fairly narrow and careful adjustment is required for predictable results. Futher, unlike a switch, additional electronics is required to obtain a useful output (ie. latching a relay, lighting a lamp, etc.) Dave Lawson From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Proximity Switches Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Telepath Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:55 Message-ID: In article , Chall@airborne.demon.co.uk says... > >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. /// >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. Hmmm...this contribution was going well until you mentioned the reliability of reed switches. A reed is something that a proximity switch does not feature. Fortunately. brian From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevem@mail.sydney.net (Steve McGinley) Subject: Re: Three questions. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: First Link Internet Services, Sydney Australia Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:55 Message-ID: In article , peter.smooker@med.monash.edu.au says... > >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? A few years ago in SYD I once saw a TN (now QF) 727 told twice to "GO AROUND". From the tone of the 2nd acknowledgement the crew weren't impressed. "GO AROUND's" are regular occurrence at SYD. Steve Sydney, Australia From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Three questions. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Telepath Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:56 Message-ID: In article , pgurnell@direct.ca says... > /// > 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) > /// This represents a not untypical example of US/Can carrier comms sloppiness. When the carriers learn to enforce the EMERGENCY comms procedure, like calling MAYDAY when needed - I will be a happier camper. Listen to the Florida crash transcript which illustrates the concept: no emergency prefix - just a 'wanna return' followed by 'nearest airport' leaving the ground to divine the seriousness of a cabin/cockpit filling rapidly with smoke. Until that time, I'll form my own opinion of what constitutes sloppiness - and by whom.. brian From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mike Subject: Re: Oscillation during flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: none Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:56 Message-ID: Bill Hensley wrote: > >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. Dear Mr Hensley, et al, I have a question. Was the oscillation in the longitudinal axis. That is, was the plane yawing left and right? My first impression was that the crew could have been "playing" with the yaw dampener, or had a failure with it. However, 20 degrees of yaw is quite extreme. I say "playing", because the weather and cruise conditions that you described do have a tendency to be boring to the crew. Its at times like this that a "what if" or "how does this thing really work" discussion might take place in the cockpit. The crew of a (TWA?) 727 was sort of "playing" with the flaps at cruise to milk out a little bit better fuel economy. They did a barrel roll before recovering, losing 10's of thousands of feet of altitude in the process. Not a boring flight at that point. Mike Weller From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Bill Hensley" Subject: Re: Oscillation during flig Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:56 Message-ID: >I have a question. Was the oscillation in the longitudinal axis. That >is, was the plane yawing left and right? >My first impression was that the crew could have been "playing" with the >yaw dampener, or had a failure with it. However, 20 degrees of yaw is >quite extreme. Mike, I should have been more clear on this, but the entire oscillation was pitch; i.e. the nose went up while the tail went down (and then the reverse occured). There was no yaw that I could feel, and no roll at all. The last couple cycles were enough to make me lift up and out of my seat a bit, and make my seat belt come in handy. Cripes, I would hope that a flight crew would experiment in the simulator, though. Cheers, Bill email mailto:Bill_Hensley@smtp.rc.trw.com web http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Bill_Hensley/ From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Oscillation during flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Telepath Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:56 Message-ID: In article , Bill_Hensley@smtp.rc.trw.com says... > > >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 /// Sounds like an autopilot failure. brian From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: emoore@netrunner.net (Eric Moore) Subject: Re: Oscillation during flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NetRunner, Miami, Florida 305 255 5800 Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:56 Message-ID: In article , Bill Hensley wrote: > 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. The crew could have been messing around with the yaw dampers. If they switch them off, the 727 will oscillate so much that the flight engineer has to sit facing forward or else he can experience vertigo / motion sickness. EM |------------------------------------------------| | Eric Moore | emoore@netrunner.net | | Miami, Florida | PGP Key: OxFBAE5865 | |------------------------------------------------| From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hclark@nixon.bbnplanet.com (Henry Clark) Subject: Re: Oscillation during flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:57 Message-ID: In article hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) writes: >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. I would have automatically nodded to this, but have had three recent experiences to counter. On two Delta flights last Saturday (6/22), the captain was standing at the cockpit door greeting deplaning passengers. One of the flights (from BOS to JFK on a 757) encountered some pretty fair bumps, and some decent up/down drafts. You know its gonna get exciting when the captain comes on asking everyone to sit down and tighten the seat belts :-). The other (from JFK to YUL) was pretty smooth, but we'd sat on the taxiway at JFK for 1.25 hours because of weather delays. On the return flight Friday from YUL to JFK, again we got delayed on the ground at JFK coming into the gate, and the captain was once again at the door. just another random data point, henry From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: 73727.644@compuserve.com (Jeff Givens) Subject: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe Incorporated Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:57 Message-ID: Anybody notice about one year ago NE removed all the data plates on their DC-9's from the main doorway? Now they are in the flight deck, above the jump seat. I was on a flight recently and someone was joking about the age of the aircraft (a -10 to boot) and asked the F/A if she could find out for them. The F/A was standing right at the cockpit and could easily see the plate but responded that she has no way of knowing. _______________________________________________________________ JG...(ABE/PHL) 73727.644@compuserve.com "I will not buy this record, it is scratched." From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Subject: Re: Engine shutdown on an A340 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:57 Message-ID: The fire bell and the Master Warning Lights are inhibited (for fire warnings only) on the 767 beginning at nose gear strut extension and ending at the first of either 20 seconds elapsed time or when 400 feet radio altitude is reached. If a fire exists when the inhibit is removed, both Master Warning Lights and the fire bell activate. Don Stimson From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Ian Judge Subject: Excaliber Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:57 Message-ID: This was taken from Teletext: Safety scare airline goes bust Holiday airline Excaliber Airways, whose aircraft has twice recently been the subject of safety scares, has gone into liquidation. Liquidators blamed "sensational" media coverage of the two incidents which led to a loss of customer confidence. Set up in 1992, Excaliber employed 180 staff and operated out of Gatwick, Manchester and East Midland airports. ******* The aircraft DC10 V2-LEH is currently impounded by BA in Hangar 6 at Gatwick. It is something to do with Sabena ( or at least it is on their maintenance schedule ) -- Ian Judge _|_ ian@judgei.demon.co.uk _____(_)_____ ! ! ! From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pedro Miguel Silva de Barros Subject: Re: First B777 Accident in HKG Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Instituto Superior Tecnico Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:57 Message-ID: Though I'm not a partidary of Boeing / Airbus controversy, and being in fact a little pro- Airbus, I just would like add that the kind of event you discribe can hardly be considered an accident. I believe it has already been discussed in this list, but this kind of event should be considered an incident, given the lack of casualties and/or major hull damage. It's very important not to confuse the diferent situations, and speacialy not to run out out loud what the media says. Most of the times their just running for audiences. Pedro Barros From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rick Hughes (Rick Hughes) Subject: Re: 777 fire? (fwd) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: iiNet Technologies (Perth, Western Australia) Reply-To: Rick Hughes Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:58 Message-ID: In Article , "Richard A. Muirden" wrote: >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. This particular event was not triggered by carriage of Durian. The cargo being carried at the time was fresh vegetables from Bangkok. As to their packaging, I don't have any details, but you can be SURE that CX will not be allowing the same cargo onto a B777 packaged the same way ! You're not alone though ... most of us assumed Durian to be the culprit initially. CX have been carrying Durian around Asia for many years now and follow the above procedures to the letter. We prohibited the carriage of Durian on our A330/340 aircraft initially until we had the fire detectors modified, as we had a number of false cargo fire warnings on the ground in Singapore with holds open and very high humidity (no perishable cargo on board). I don't know if the B777 has been cleared to fly with Durian yet?? If it has, Durian properly packaged hasn't been a problem to date. >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. Agree 100%!! Rick Hughes 0830, 29Jun96 Perth Western Australia From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: yungi@lansol.com (Yung-I Chu) Subject: Re: delta LA-Hong Kong flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: LAN Solutions Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:58 Message-ID: >The question arises: where does Delta use all of their MD-11s now? NRT & NGO From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Koen.Moens@ping.be (Koen Moens) Subject: request inf on registration number of crashed ilyurin 76 in kinshasa Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUnet Belgium, Leuven, Belgium Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:58 Message-ID: Louvain, July 1st 1996 Hello, On June 6th 1996 an Ilyurin 76 crashed at Ndili airport in Kinshasa, Zaire. Can anybody help me identify this plane? I am specifically looking for registration number and airline company. If anyone would know things like the flying routes, which airports it frequented, past history etc. of this plane, that too would be very usefull. Many thanks, Koen Moens Zwarte Zustersstraat 6, 3000 Leuven, Belgium From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rick Hughes (Rick Hughes) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: iiNet Technologies (Perth, Western Australia) Reply-To: Rick Hughes Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:58 Message-ID: In Article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: >In article , >Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk wrote: >> .... 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. >...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. >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 Great story ... I liked it! I used to operate the L1011 into Shanghai up until a few years ago and yep ... they're still doing it! People all over the runways and taxiways, particularly at night. Though I can't recall anyone actually hitting one of these 'spirited' individuals in recent times ! They might have tightened up security a little since then?? Rick Hughes Perth Western Australia From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rick Hughes (Rick Hughes) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: iiNet Technologies (Perth, Western Australia) Reply-To: Rick Hughes Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:58 Message-ID: In Article , jsteele@AZStarNet.com (Jerry Steele) wrote: >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. Can't comment on what caused the electrical glitches you saw on that particular flight ... all I can say is that in nearly 2 years of operating the A340 through all sorts of turbulence, I've never experienced anything like that and have never had any reports of such phenomenon from passengers OR cabin crew. >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? As for the 'power glitches' ... they're not glitches at all. You're comparing a 4 engined aircraft optimised for ULH operations with a large twin. Compare the A330 with the A340 and you will find exactly the same difference, perhaps even more so if you compare the RR Trent powered A330s with the A340. A large twin must take into account the total thrust loss of one engine (50% of installed thrust) on takeoff as against the quad which need only allow for total thrust loss of one engine (25% of installed thrust). Twins require a greater thrust to weight ratio for certification. End of story ... it's hardly a 'glitch'. As for your superlatives describing your B777 experience, I am very pleased to hear that you enjoyed the flight so much! However, the way you so enthusiastically endorse the local product is typical of the somewhat one-eyed attitudes (now don't get upset ) of many of the substantial number of Boeing devotees in this forum ... the very point the originator of this thread was perhaps trying to get at. Nothing wrong with that, so long as we all keep a balanced viewpoint and don't start spreading mis-informed opinion as per your comments above. I fly for an outfit that operate a substantial number of Boeing aircraft and an increasing number of Airbus aircraft as well. For those who manage to keep their minds open, they benefit from seeing the good in BOTH designers products. As I've said in this forum before, both Boeing and Airbus make good aircraft ... but it is a horses for courses situation. Generally speaking, the Airbus products are top notch, very economical to operate and liked by both crew and passengers ... as much as the Boeing products are excellent and thoroughly deserve their place in the inventory. There are routes we wouldn't dream of putting an A340 on and there are routes a B747 is totally unsuited to. The trick is being able to keep an open mind and selecting the appropriate aircraft for the route. If an airline can get that right, profitability is almost ensured. As for the different philosophies of Airbus v Boeing ... I'm with Jon Ward ... I'm not going to get drawn into that. Suffice to say that we all have our personal opinions which do not necessarily make one better than the other. The average airliner is so complex that there will always be some items that are perceived to be better designed/implemented by one manufacturer than another. Again, many of the guys I fly with have flown numerous different types and the majority genuinely enjoy flying the Airbus types every bit as much as they did the Boeing types they spent years on. Rick Hughes Perth Western Australia From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "B." <70263.237@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:59 Message-ID: >>it seems as if the 777 does have far more power than the A340 (both were fully loaded by the way).<< Manufacturers don't usually put more engine on an aircraft than is needed just for fun. Each aircraft must be able to loose an engine at V1 and continue a takeoff, at max gross weight, meeting FAR part 25 climb criteria. A two engine airplane looses 50% power, and a 4 engine airplane looses 25% power. Therefore, the two engine airplane needs a higher thrust to weight ratio than a 4 engine airplane. Now just because the airplane was full or people, DON'T assume it was "fully loaded." Without knowing the cargo and fuel load, it's pretty hard to make any assumptions along this line. -- .............................. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.marketplace,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: "T.A.Omiecinski" Subject: Help! Need anything related to "Cost of Onwership". Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Bristol, UK Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:59 Message-ID: Hi there, I've got s problem with obtaining any data that could be used for assessment of cost of ownership of avionics systems. I mean anything starting from prices of typical avionics modules, to cost of unscheduled maintenance, plane delays and so on. Does anyone know where I could find such data? On the Internet? Maybe someone could send it to me. Thanks a lot for all repsonses. TOmi ---- PS. I'm a student at the University of Bristol, UK. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety,sci.engr,comp.software-eng,comp.software.testing Path: bounce-back From: P.G.Hamer@nortel.co.uk (Peter Hamer) Subject: Re: N-version software compared to others Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, London Road, Harlow, England. Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:59 Message-ID: To pick up one point in a long and interesting posting. In article Tom Speer writes: >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 looked into the pro's and con's of N-version programming, and ran >accross some interesting studies. ... > >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. If the weak-link in N-version programming is the fact that the requirement is ambiguous and difficult to understand, surely the same holds true for formal methods? The formalization of the requirements might be internally water-tight, but its chances a of capturing the intentions of a large and complex informal spec are questionable. I'm not arguing against formal methods, just saying that a system development path using them shares some of the failure mechanisms of more traditional system development paths. Finding out what the user needs [ie should have asked for] remains a hard problem. Peter PS Somewhat off topic, I remember a correction to a pilots handbook giving a new minimum-fuel flight path for landing. The new path had the advantage of remaining above ground-level at all times! Sometimes important details are difficult to fit into a chosen formalism or support in its reasoning mechanisms. From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Daan Vlaskamp Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:59 Message-ID: At 12:42 27-06-96, you wrote: >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). > Part of the answer to this may lie in the fact that the A340 is four-engined airplane and the 777 has only two engines. You would expect that the four engine aircraft had more power, but the opposite is true. This is because of the climb requirement in an "n-1" (one engine out) situation. With one engine out the two-engined airplane would lose over 50% of its power. The four-engined airplane would lose a little more than 25%. So the climb requirement would have to be met with respectively one and three engines. That's why two-engined airplanes are usually "overpowered" when all engines are operative. Daan Vlaskamp The Netherlands vlaskamp@cuci.nl From kls Sun Jul 7 14:15:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Jul 96 14:15:59 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swar > 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. > > > 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. The NTSB report was faulty. For example there was no failure of the control system. The crash was due to a stall. The airplane had flown for over 40 seconds when the pilot, trained to fly at the V2 speed(1.2 times the stall speed), slowed down. Because the wing leading edge had been damaged by the trajectory of the nacelle, the stall speed was increased. It is true that the slat had retracted but the airplane was designed to fly at V2 even if the slat were retracted but the leading edge damage was too much. The pylon was designed with a large safety factor and the engine attachments were designed to break loose if violent engine vibrations occurred. It is true that the airplane was not designed to fly near the normal stall speed with the leading edge slashed up but neither is any other airplane. I believe one of the responses was to change the manual to tell pilots who have acheived a safe speed not to slow down to meet some 'book' speed when all ground obstacles have been cleared - which they were. -- Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Sun Jul 7 14:16:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Oldest Air Force Jet Transport to Retire (Again!) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Date: 07 Jul 96 14:16:00 Message-ID: AFAIK, the USAFM never expected to receive 58-6970. I have a friend who is the Program Director at the Museum, and he's always referred to their getting VC-137C 62-6000. I guess 26000 is due to go to Dayton sometime before the end of FY96, but that's subject to change (as usual...they were supposed to get her in FY94). Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Sun Jul 7 14:16:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Date: 07 Jul 96 14:16:00 Message-ID: John Liebson 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. A point of curiosity for me concerns Lockheeds motivation in the mid to late 1950's. The 1649 Starliner is a rather significant upgrade to the Constellation airframe; clearly the Electra was in development at the same time. When you look at the two side by side and in comparision with an earlier Constellation some interesting things are noted. The earlier Connies all subscribed to the elliptical planform wing paradigm. The Starliner had a more conventional linear taper wing. Presumably, the Starliner had additional twist for induced drag reasons... were the high lift systems different? It seems that all Connies were fitted with three-bladed propellors, where as the Electra has those enormous four-bladed jobs that fan virtually the enitre flapped span of the wing. The arrangement of engines is rather different, with the Connies having the engines grouped inboard. The Electra has pretty good short field performance, what were the Connies like? The Hercules was well under way by 1955; there was no serious attempt at making a turboprop Starliner.. It seems that turbo-compound piston engines were maintenence headaches - any ideas for the popularity of piston engines? The Electra was a short/mid range airplane, the Connie/Starliner a mid-longer range airplane. Yet the Electra has a noticably higher top speed. Any rationale? By visual aesthetics alone, the COnnie would appear the cleaner design -tim From kls Sun Jul 7 14:16:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Date: 07 Jul 96 14:16:00 Message-ID: The 1649 may not have been a financial success for Lockheed, nor for that matter for TWA, Air France or Lufthansa (the original buyers). The main reason for their dumping them as quickly as they did was mainly prestiege, not economics. The Starliner suffered the fate of coming out at the same time as the 707 was all the rage. The big airlines didn't want their premier routes being flown by Starliners when the "other guys" had 707s, so they got rid of them. I agree that the program was not a smashing success, but the other users of the 1649 found good use for them, and probably made money with them into the late 1960s. It's hard to justify flying an airplane that loses money for you. JRH From kls Sun Jul 7 14:16:00 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: 07 Jul 96 14:16:00 Message-ID: Just got a bit of news on the BAe-146, aka RJ-100. Avianca in Colombia has nine of them. I heard that last week seven of them were grounded with bad engines, and their DGAC has threatened to ground them permanently if they have one more in-flight shutdown. RD From kls Sun Jul 7 14:16:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ergun@theory.lcs.mit.edu (A. Funda Ergun) Subject: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT Date: 07 Jul 96 14:16:00 Message-ID: Last month, on my way from Boston to Philadelphia in a really bad storm, during mid-flight, we saw a sudden flash of light, and felt a major jolt. The plane, after tilting severely and bouncing up and down and shaking for some time, resumed its regular flight eventually and we landed without an incident. A person sitting next to the wing claims to have seen lightning hit the wing, the pilot said he didn't know if we were actually hit. All in all, it was a scary experience, mostly because I had no idea about how dangerous or commonplace this was. I know planes are designed to handle lightning (otherwise how would you expect to put a large chunk of metal inside storm clouds safely?), but how OK is it exactly to be hit? (in our case even the lights didn't go off) Is it a pretty common thing to happen? Has anybody crashed because of it? (I presume the plane could take some throwing around but the electrical system might die.) I am wondering if we were actually hit, or if we just experienced a near miss. Of course, this sentence might be totally meaningless since there might be a continuous spectrum between a hit and a miss... It was an interesting experience in how slowly time passes during distress :-) Funda -- Funda Ergun Dept of CS, Cornell University URL: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/ergun/ergun.html From kls Sun Jul 7 14:16:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 07 Jul 96 14:16:01 Message-ID: >I know planes are designed to handle lightning ... Is it a pretty >common thing to happen? Has anybody crashed because of it? I don't know how common it is, but I believe there's been at least one crash due to a lightning strike. Details should be in the newsgroup archives (see http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archive-search.html and try searching for "lighting and crash") but as I recall a 707 or KC-135 crashed near Baltimore some years ago after a lightning strike triggered an explosion in one of the fuel tanks in the wings. I don't recall if there was a leak or some other additional cause or if it was just the lightening, but I'm sure the details are in the archives. -- 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 Sun Jul 7 14:16:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: S.Catt@lancaster.ac.uk (Stephen Catt) Subject: The ATR72 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lancaster University Date: 07 Jul 96 14:16:01 Message-ID: Last Friday we flew from Poznan to Warsaw on an ATR72 (twin engine turboprop) belonging to LOT, the Polish national airline. My question is - who makes this plane? It's not one I've come across before. TIA Steve From kls Sun Jul 7 14:16:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pmorten@VNET.IBM.COM Subject: Re: Flying Boats Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 07 Jul 96 14:16:01 Message-ID: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca wrote: > > 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 serial it carries is not entirely spurious as it is the one under which it was built (as a Seaford). > 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). There is also the Sandringham 4 (JM715/ZH-AMH/VH-BRC/VP-LVE/N158C) at Southampton and Kermit Weeks' Sunderland in Florida. Philip Morten From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: [: A310 EROPS] Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rdd@netcom.com Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:39 Message-ID: Forwarded info, anonymized from a credible source. Check with me before any further redistribution. --------------- A310 with P&W engines loses EROPS qualification. ================================================ After suffering a second engine failure en route this year on Sunday, June 30, A310s with P&W engines lost their EROPS qualification in Belgium. Fewer than 25 of A310s produced share the engine configuration involved. The problems are traced back to a failure of the forward bearing of the engine. On the A310, part of the engine nacelle is stressed to support the engine. This allowed for lighter engine / wing mountings, saving weight in the process. However, if the nacelle is not correctly aligned, extra stress is placed on the forward engine bearing, causing it to fail prematurely. As a result, the authorities lowered the time to replace the bearing from 10,000 hours to 6,000 hours. However, the bearing on the failed engine last sunday had fewer than 400 hours on it. The statistics for *in flight shut down* for the complete fleet of A310s with P&W engines still meet EROPS criteria. The statistics for the decision to withdraw the qualification are based on fewer than 20% of the world wide fleet. EROPS qualifications are sometimes *partially* based on experience of the engine on another airframe. The same P&W engine on other airframes has a much better *in flight shut down* rate, likely because these airframes do not use the concept of the stressed nacelle. GE engines on the same A310 also have a much better reliability. Apparently, the engine/airframe combination causes unwanted interference leading to the higher *in flight shut down* rate on the A310/P&W combination. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: The DC-10 yet once again (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: 09 Jul 96 13:09:43 Message-ID: In article shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) writes: > The NTSB report was faulty. For example there was no failure of the control > system. The slats are considered part of the flight control system. > The crash was due to a stall. Which was engendered by inadvertent retraction of the flaps. Duh. > Because the wing leading edge had been damaged by the > trajectory of the nacelle, the stall speed was increased. Because the > wing leading edge had been damaged by the > trajectory of the nacelle, the stall speed was increased. Apart from the absence of the slats, there is no indication that any aerodynamic or structural deformity contributed to the higher stall speed of that wing Since you have apparently forgotten much of the report (the accuracy of which has never been contested by any responsible authority), here you go: 1.11 Flight Recorders The aircraft was equipped with a Fairchild Model A-100 CVR, serial No. 2935. The CVR was recovered and brought to the Safety Board's laboratory where a transcript of the recording was prepared. The recording was incomplete because of the loss of electrical power to the recorder during aircraft rotation. However, the aircraft's gross weight, stabilizer trim setting, V1, and VR callouts were recorded. The aircraft was equipped with a Sundstrand digital flight data recorder (DFDR), serial no. 2298. The recorder had been damaged structurally, but there was no fire or heat damage. The recording tape was broken; upon removal from the recorder the tape was spliced together and a readout was made. Two 6-sec areas of data were damaged because of the breaks in the tapes; however, most of these data was recovered. The DFDR recorded 50 sec of data during the takeoff roll and 31 sec of airborne data before the recording ended. (See appendix H.) The DFDR readout showed that the stabilizer trim setting for takeoff was 6.5! aircraft noseup. The DFDR'S tolerance for this parameter is + 1!. Because of unusual aircraft attitudes during the last few seconds of the flight, the recorded altitude and airspeed data were not correct. Therefore, the DFDR altitude and indicated airspeed values cited hereafter have been corrected for the position errors resulting from the aircraft's attitudes during the last few seconds of the descending flight. Correlation of the DFDR and CVR recordings disclosed that the flightcrew had set the flaps and stabilizer trim at 10! and about 5! aircraft noseup, respectively, for takeoff. A rolling takeoff was made, takeoff thrust was stabilized at 80 KIAS, and left rudder and right aileron were used to compensate for the right crosswind. The V1 and VR callouts were made about 2 sec after these speeds were recorded by the DFDR. The elevator began to deflect up at VR. The aircraft began to rotate upward immediately and continued upward at a rate of 1.5! per sec. Flight 191 accelerated through V2 speed during rotation and before it lifted off the runway. The last stable takeoff thrust on the No. 1 engine was recorded 2 sec before liftoff. One second later, the word "damn" was recorded on the CVR, and then the CVR ceased operating. One second before liftoff and simultaneous with the loss of the CVR and the No. 1 engine's parameters, the DFDR ceased recording the positions of the left inboard aileron, left inboard elevator, lower rudder, and Nos. 2 and 4 left wing leading edge slats. The DFDR continued to record all other parameters including the position of the upper rudder, the outboard aileron, the outboard elevator, and the No. 4 leading edge slats on the right side of the aircraft. The electrical power for the CVR and the sensors for the lost DFDR functions were all derived from the aircraft's No. 1 a.c. generator bus. Flight 191 became airborne about 6,000 ft from the start of the takeoff roll and remained airborne for 31 sec. It lifted off at V2 + 6 KIAS and at 10! pitch attitude. Two seconds after liftoff, the DFDR reading for the No. 1 engine's N1 was zero, the No. 2 engine's N1 speed was increasing through 101 percent, and the No. 3 engine's N1 was essentially at the takeoff setting. The flight lifted off in a slight left wing-down attitude. Application of right wing-down aileron and right rudder restored the flight to a wings-level attitude and the heading was stabilized between 325! and 327!. The flight maintained a steady climb about 1,150 feet per minute (fpm) at a 14! noseup pitch attitude--the target pitch attitude displayed by the flight director for a two-engine climb. During the climb, the No. 2 engine N1 speed increased gradually from 101 percent to a final value of 107 percent; the no. 3 engine N1 speed did not change appreciably from the takeoff setting. During the initial parA of the climb, the aircraft accelerated to a maximum speed of 172 KIAS; it reached this value about 9 sec after liftoff and about 140 ft a.g.l. Flight 191 continued to climb about 1,100 fpm. The pitch attitude and heading were relatively stable. Right wing-down aileron and right rudder were used to control and maintain the heading and the roll attitude during the climb in the gusty right crosswind. During the climb, the aircraft began to decelerate from 172 KIAS at an average rate of about 1 kn per second. At 20 sec after liftoff, at 325 ft a.g.l. and 159 KIAS, the flight began to roll to the left and passed through 5! left wing down. The left roll was accompanied by increasing right-wing- down aileron deflection. At this point, the previously stabilized right rudder deflected suddenly to zero, remained at zero for 1 sec, and then moved toward its previous deflection. The flight began to turn to the left, and the left roll increased even though increasing right rudder and right-wing- down aileron deflections were being applied. At 325 ft a.g.l. the flight had turned through the runway heading and was rolling to the left at 4! per second. The right rudder deflection increased during the turn. The previously stable pitch attitude began to decrease from 14! even though the elevator was being increased to the full aircraft noseup deflection. The maximum pitch rate of about 12! per second was reached just before the crash. Flight 191 continued to roll and turn to the left despite increasing right rudder and right-wing-down aileron deflections. Three seconds before the end of the DFDR tape, the aircraft was in a 90! left bank and at a 0! pitch attitude. The DFDR recording ended with the aircraft in a 112! left roll and a 21! nosedown pitch attitude with full counter aileron and rudder controls and nearly full up elevator being applied. DFDR longitudinal and vertical acceleration data were integrated to determine the headwind components at points where the aircraft attained certain speeds and where it lifted off; to establish an altitude profile; and to determine the location where the DFDR stopped. These data showed that the DFDR ceased operation 14,370 ft from the southeast end of runway 32R and 820 ft left of the runway's extended centerline. Examination of the crash site showed that the first point of impact was 14,450 ft beyond the southeast end of runway 32R and 1,100 ft left of its extended centerline. Based on these data and the corrected altitudes, the DFDR ceased operating at impact. The flight reached a maximum altitude of 350 ft a.g.l. 1.16.4 Wind Tunnel and Simulator Tests The wind tunnel at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Langley Research Center was used to determine the aerodynamic characteristics of a DC-10 wing with the left engine and pylon missing, left wing leading edge damaged, and the- left wing's outboard leading edge slats retracted. In this configuration, the aircraft's stall speed, minimum control speeds with the critical engine inoperative (VMC), and controllability were calculated. The effects that the loss of the No. 1 hydraulic system and the possible loss of the No. 3 hydraulic system would have on the aircraft's control authority were also investigated and calculated. The DFDR data, aerodynamic data derived from wind tunnel tests, and the atmospheric conditions on the day of the accident were integrated into the Douglas Motion Base Simulator. The following conditions were simulated: (1) The separation of the No. 1 engine and pylon and the aerodynamic effects of the separation and resultant damage, such as changes in the aircraft's gross weight and lateral and longitudinal e.g.; (2) the uncommanded retraction of the left wing's outboard leading edge slats; (3) the loss of the No. 1 and No. 3 hydraulic systems; (4) the loss of power from the No. 1 a.c. electrical bus and resultant loss of the captain's flight instruments; and (4) both the loss and retention of the stall warning system and its stickshaker function. The wind tunnel data for the damaged aircraft were correlated with the DFDR data so that the simulator data reflected those derived from Flight l91's DFDR. With the slats extended, the all- engine-operating stall speed was 124 KIAS; the asymmetric slat-retracted stall speed for the left wing was 159 KIAS; and the estimated wings-level VMc for the damaged aircraft was 128 KIAS. With a 4! left bank-- a bank into the missing engineQ 159 KIAS was the minimum speed at which directional control could be maintained with the engines operating at takeoff thrust. Each of the thirteen pilots who participated in the simulation was thoroughly briefed on the flight profile of Flight 191. In the simulator the No. 1 engine and pylon assembly was programmed to separate at 10! of rotation on all takeoffs with simultaneous loss of the No. 1 hydraulic system. On some test runs the No. 3 hydraulic system was also programmed to fail. Generally, slats began to retract about 1 sec after the engine and pylon separated and were fully closed in about 2 sec. Some test runs were conducted with the slat retraction beginning 10 to 20 sec after the engine and pylon separated. Speed control guidance from the flight director was available for all runs, and the stickshaker, programmed for the slat-retracted-airspeed schedule, was operational on some runs. During the tests, about 70 takeoffs and 2 simulated landings were conducted. In all cases where the pilots duplicated the control inputs and pitch attitudes shown on the Flight l91's DFDR, control of the aircraft was lost and Flight l91's flight profile was duplicated. Those pilots who attempted to track the flight director's pitch command bars also duplicated Flight l91's DFDR profile. According to American Airline's procedures, the standard rate of rotation is between 3! to 4! per second, whereas Flight 191 rotated at only about 1.5! per second. In those simulations in which the standard rate was used, the aircraft lifted off at a lower airspeed, and the airspeed did not increase to the levels recorded by Flight l91's DFDR. The left roll began at 159 KIAS; however, because of the lesser amount of excess airspeed, the roll started below 100 ft a.g.l. In those cases where slat retraction was delayed, the left roll started at a higher altitude but its characteristics remained the same. In all cases, however, the roll began at 159 KIAS. In many cases, the pilots, upon recognizing the start of the roll at a constant pitch attitude, lowered the nose, increased airspeed, recovered, and continued flight. The roll angles were less than 30!, and about 80 percent right rudder and 70 percent right-wing-down aileron were required for recovery. In those cases where the pilot attempted to regain the 14! pitch attitude commanded by the flight director command bars, the aircraft reentered the left roll. On those test runs with an operative stickshaker programmed to begin at the slat-retracted-airspeed schedule, the stickshaker activated 7 sec after liftoff and the pilot flew the aircraft at the stickshaker boundary speed of 167 to 168 KIAS (V2 + 15). Also, when V2 + 10 was obtained and the pilot disregarded the pitch command bars, a stable climb was readily achieved. Attempts to duplicate the l-sec interval of zero rudder displacement did not have any noticeable effect on the flight profile. Based on the probable electrical configuration existing after the takeoff of Flight 191, pilots and test pilots who testified at the Safety Board's public hearing believed that the stall warning system and the slat disagreement warning light were inoperative. They stated that the flightcrew cannot see the No. 1 engine and left wing from the cockpit and, therefore, the first warning the flightcrew would have received of the stall was the beginning of the roll. Under these circumstances, none of these pilots believed that it was reasonable to expect the flightcrew of Flight 191 to react in the same manner as did the simulator pilots who were aware of Flight 191's profile and were able to recover from the stall. The FAA conducted a second series of tests to determine the takeoff and landing characteristics of the DC-10 with an asymmetrical leading edge slat configuration. The slat configuration which existed on Flight 191 before impact was duplicated during about 84 simulated takeoffs and 28 simulated landings. Takeoffs were performed at both normal and slow rotation rates, at normal V speeds, at VR -5 kn, and with thrust reduced to- simulate a limiting weight condition during a second-segment climb. The "slat disagree" light, takeoff warning system, and stall warning system were programmed to operate properly for both the normal and asymmetric outboard slat configuration. Landings were performed at the maximum landing weight, 50! of flap, and a normal approach speed. The simulator was programmed so that a left outboard slat failure would cause the slat to fully retract at altitudes as low as 30 ft a.g.l. The FAA concluded that "The speed margins during the final portion of the landing approach are also very small; however, the landing situation is considered less critical since powered slat retraction from the landing configuration requires 18 seconds and an additional thrust is readily available to adjust the flight path."{1} During these tests, none of the pilots experienced problems with aircraft controllability. In many of the test runs, the stickshaker activated at or just after liftoff, and the pilots altered the aircraft's attitude and airspeed in response to the warning. A loss of thrust from an engine during the takeoff roll was not simulated during any of the tests. Based on a study performed by the J. H. Wiggins Company{2}, the best estimates of the probabilities of an uncommanded slat retraction during takeoff ranged from one chance in one hundred million (1 x 10-8 ) to two chances in a billion (2 x 10-9 ) per flight. 1.17.3 DC-10 Certification The DC-lO's pylon structure, flight controls, hydraulic system, and electrical system were certificated in accordance with the applicable provisions of 14 CFR Part 25 effective February I, 1965, as amended, and Special Condition No. 25-18-WE-7, January 7, 1970, as amended. (See appendix E.) Special Condition No. 25-18-WE-7, Docket No. 10058, was issued pursuant to 14 CFR 21.16 because the airworthiness regulations of Part 25 did not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the aircraft because of a novel or unusual design feature. In the case of the DC-10, this feature was the fully powered flight control system. The function of assessing compliance with certain aspects of the type certification was delegated to FAA Designated Engineering Representatives who were employed by McDonnell-Douglas. Such representatives are designated by the FAA to represent the Administrator pursuant to Section 314 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and 14 CFR 183.29. According to FAA and McDonnell- Douglas witnesses, the workload involved in the certification process far exceeds the FAA's manpower resources. The chief of the FAA's Western Region Aircraft Engineering Division stated that during the type certification process the review of the basic data and the most critical tests are reserved to the FAA itself. The fault analysis data are reviewed and approved by FAA engineering personnel. He also said that little delegation is done in the flight test area. The chief of the FAA's Western Region Flight Test Branch stated that the DC-lO's type certification required 500 hrs of flight testing, and 90 percent of that time was flown by FAA test pilots. The principle underlying the regulations concerning the certification the aircraft's systems was redundancy. This principle contemplates that, while each critical component of a system is required to perform functions within the design envelope of the aircraft, its failure will nevertheless be assumed. Accordingly, appropriate analyses and tests are required to insure that sufficient redundancy exists so that after a single failure of any component or element its functions will be distributed to other components capable of assuming them safely. The criteria for the certification of the aircraft's pylon and its components were contained in 14 CFR 25.571, "Fatigue Evaluation of Flight Structure". (See appendix E) This regulation required the manufacturer to show, by analysis, tests, or both, that those parts of the structure whose failure could result in catastrophic failure of the aircraft would be able to withstand the repeated loads of variable magnitude expected in flight, that catastrophic failure or excessive structural deformation that could adversely affect the flight characteristics of the aircraft are not- probable after fatigue failure or obvious failure of a single principal structural element, and that after this type of failure of a single principal structural element, the remaining structure must be able to provide an alternate load path. The regulation only required that fatigue damage be evaluated. The chief of the FAA's Western Region Aircraft Engineering Division testified that under normal loading there was "extremely low stress" on the upper flange and "the possibility of fatigue was believed to be extremely low, low enough that you would not consider fatigue failure. Because all flight controls were hydraulically actuated and the basic regulations did not cover this configuration, Special Condition No. 25-18-WE-7 was formulated. However, the trailing edge flap and leading edge slat systems were certified under the basic regulations. The leading edge slat system was certified in accordance with 14 CFR 25.671-general control system requirements, 14 CFR 25.675--control system stops, 14 CFR 25.685-detailed design requirements for flight control systems, and 14 CFR 25.689--cable system design. The chief program engineer at McDonnell-Douglas said that the flap control requirements of 14 CFR 25.701(a) were also applied to the slats. Paragraph (a) states: "The motion on the flaps on opposite sides of the plane of symmetry must be synchronized unless the aircraft has safe characteristics with the flaps retracted on one side and extended on the other." Since the left and right inboard slats are controlled by a single valve and actuated by a common drum and the left and right outboard slats receive their command from mechanically linked control valves which are "slaved" to the inboard slats by the followup cable, the synchronization requirement was satisfied. However, since the cable drum actuating mechanisms of the left and right outboard slats were independent of each other, the possibility existed that one outboard slat might fail to respond to a commanded movement. Therefore, the safe flight characteristics of the aircraft with asymmetrical outboard slats were demonstrated by test flight. These flight characteristics were investigated within an airspeed range bounded by the limiting airspeed for the takeoff slat positions --260 kns--and the stall warning speed; the flight test did not investigate these- characteristics under takeoff conditions. In addition, a slat disagree warning light system was installed which, when illuminated, indicated that the slat handle and slat position disagree, or the slats are in transit, or the slats have been extended automatically. The program engineer stated that the commanded slat position is held by trapped fluid in the actuating cylinder, and that no consideration was given to an alternate locking mechanism. The slats' hydraulic lines and followup cables were routed as close as possible to primary structure for protection; however, routing them behind the wing's front spar was not considered because of interference with other systems. The branch chief of the Reliability and Safety Engineering Organization of the Douglas Aircraft Company described the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and fault analysis. The witness indicated that the FMEA was a basic working document in which rational failure modes were postulated and analyzed; vendors and subcontractors were requested to perform similar analyses on equipment they supplied to McDonnell-Douglas. Previous design and service experience was incorporated in the initial DC-10-10's FMEA's and analyses were modified as the design progressed. The FMEA's were synthesized to make fault analyses, which were system-oriented summary documents submitted to the FAA to satisfy 14 CFR 25.1309. The FAA could have requested and could have reviewed the FMEA's. The basic regulations under which the slats were certified did not require accountability for multiple failures. The slat fault analysis submitted to the FAA listed 11 faults or failures, all of which were correctable by the flightcrew. However, one multiple failure--erroneous motion transmitted to the right-hand outboard slats and an engine failure on the appropriate side--was considered by McDonnell-Douglas in its FMEA. The FMEA noted that the "failure increases the amount of yaw but would be critical only under the most adverse flight or takeoff conditions. The probability of both failures occurring is less than 1 x 10-10 ." The evidence indicated that this FMEA was not given to the FAA formally but was available for review. Special Condition No. 25-18-WE-7 requires the applicant to show that the aircraft is capable of continued flight and landing after "any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable." According to FAA witnesses, the definition for extremely improbable that they have been using "nd have been accepting for a number of years is one chance in a billion, or 1 x 10 The regulation, 14 CFR 25.207, requires that "Stall warning with sufficient margin to prevent inadvertent stalling with the flaps and landing gear in any normal position must be clear and distinctive to the pilot in straight and turning flight." The warning can be furnished through the inherent aerodynamic qualities of the aircraft or by a mechanical or electronic device. A visual warning device is unacceptable. The warning must begin at a speed exceeding the stall speed or the minimum speed demonstrated "....by seven percent or at any lesser margin if the stall warning has enough clarity and duration, distinctiveness, or similar properties." The flight testing of the DC-10 disclosed that the inherent aerodynamic stall warning exceeded the required regulatory margin in all flap configurations until the landing flap configuration (50!) was reached. According to the chief of the FAA's Flight Test Branch, with 50! flaps the stall buffet still precedes stall onset, "but it occurs quite close, within just a few knots of the aerodynamic stall." Since the margin did not meet the regulatory criteria, a stall warning system was installed. The initial DC-10 design incorporated the left (No. 1) and right (No. 2) autothrottle speed computers (AT/SC) as stall warning computers. The No. 1 and No. 2 AT/SC's were powered by the No. 1 and No. 3 a.c. buses, respectively. The No. 1 AT/SC received inputs from the left inboard flap position transmitter, from a position sensor on the left outboard slat section, and the left angle-of-attack sensor. The No. 2 AT/SC received its inputs from counterpart sensors and components on the right side of the aircraft. The stickshaker motor was mounted on the captain's control column and was powered by the No. 1 d.c. bus. A stall signal from either computer would actuate the stickshaker motor. The design contained provisions for a second stickshaker motor to be mounted on the first officer's control column; however, the second stickshaker was a customer designated option. The accident aircraft's stall warning system did not incorporate the second stickshaker described above. The December 1, 1978, revision of 14 CFR 25.571 retitled the regulation "Damage-Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Structure." The fail-safe evaluation must now include damage modes due to fatigue, corrosion, and accidental damage. According to the manufacturer, the consideration for accidental damage was limited to damage which can be inflicted during routine maintenance and aircraft servicing. The FAA's Aircraft Engineering Division chief also stated that while the recertification process disclosed a deficiency in design data on file with the FAA it did not disclose any deficiency in the pylon's design. In some cases, the manufacturer had the data on file. In one instance, the data concerning the alternate load paths for thrust loads following a thrust-link failure were questioned. The manufacturer's analysis assumed the loads would be carried by the forward bulkhead. The manufacturer also stated that the thrust loads could be carried out by the aft bulkhead. The FAA asked McDonnell-Douglas to substantiate this claim, and they did so successfully. As a result of the postaccident simulator tests, an AD was issued which required, as a condition for reinstatement of the type certificate, that the aircraft be operated either with both AT/SC's installed and operating, or with a modified single AT/SC that would receive slat information from both sides of the aircraft. (See appendix F). On July 30, 1979, a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), docket No. 79WE-17AD, was issued. (See appendix F.) The NPRM contained an AD which will require that the stall warning system incorporate two AT/SC's and two stickshaker motors, and that the AT/SC's be modified to receive position information from both outboard wing leading edge slat groups. 1.17.8 Flightcrew Procedures American Airline's Operating Manual contains the recommended procedures for operating the DC- 10 aircraft and its personnel are required to comply with the procedures set forth therein. Since the failure of the pylon and engine did not occur until after V1, only those company procedures relating to continued flight were examined. These procedures are contained in the Emergency Procedures Section of the Operating Manual. The Emergency Procedures Section is prefaced with the following guideline: "The procedures on the Emergency Checklist are those where immediate and precise action on the part of the crew will substantially reduce the possibility of personal injury or loss of life. The emergency procedures in this section are presented as the best way to handle these specific situations. T hey represent the safest, most practical manner of coping with emergencies, based on the judgment of the most experienced Pilots and F/E's, the FAA approved procedures, and the best available information. If an emergency arises for which these procedures are not adequate or do not apply, the crew's best judgment should prevail.S The manual also provides guidelines as to how the flightcrew will use the emergency checklist. The manual states, in part: The checklist is a tool provided to minimize usually hasty and perhaps improper action. Though all checklist procedures are not required to be committed to memory it is expected that all crewmen understand fully each and every procedure. : The nature and seriousness of any given emergency cannot always be immediately and accurately determined. As a professional you will always fly the aircraft and/or immediately correct the obvious prior to any specific reference to the cockpit checklist. Some of the items which fall into the category of attending to the obvious are donning of O2 masks and goggles, establishing interphone communications, resetting the fire aural warning, etc. The emergency procedure for a takeoff engine failure, flaps 15! or less or 22!, states, in part: "This procedure assumes indication of engine failure where the takeoff is continued. Each takeoff should be planned for the possibility of an engine failure. Normal takeoff procedures ensure the ability to handle an engine failure successfully at any point. If an engine failure occurs when making a Standard Thrust takeoff, Standard Thrust on the remaining engines will produce the required takeoff performance. If deemed necessary, the remaining engines may be advanced to Maximum Take-Off Thrust. Speed CLIMB OUT AT V2 UNTIL REACHING 800 FEET AGL OR OBSTACLE CLEARANCE ALTITUDE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER THEN LOWER NOSE AND ACCELERATE" The Operating Manual's discussion of the procedure contained an annotated profile drawing of the takeoff. (See figure 14.) The annotations accompanying the profile sketch state (after the aircraft is airborne), "Continue rotation to V2 (Deck angle 12!-20!)." Over the next picture of the aircraft is the note, "Positive rate-Gear up." The next picture shows the aircraft level at 800 ft AGL and contains the accelerate instructions noted above. Q 47Q On July 23, 1979, American Airlines issued Operations Bulletin No. DC-10-73 which amended the procedure. The bulletin states, in part: "The following climb speeds will be utilized to obstacle clearance altitude when an engine failure occurs after V1 on takeoff: - If engine failure occurs after V but not above V2, maintain V2 to obstacle clearance altitude. - If engine failure occurs after V2, maintain speed attained at time of failure but not above V2 + 10 to obstacle clearance altitude. - If engine failure occurs at a speed higher than V2 + 10, reduce speed to and maintain V2 + 10 to obstacle clearance altitude. NOTE: If the FD Take-Off mode is engaged at the time of engine failure the Pitch Command Bar (and the Fast/Slow Indicator) will command V2 . Therefore, if the failure occurs above V2, disregard these indications and fly the speed called for in the above procedure." 2. ANALYSIS Aircraft and Flightcrew Performance The flightcrew of Flight 191 were certificated properly and were qualified for the flight. There was no evidence that their performance was affected by medical problems. The No. 1 engine and pylon assembly separated after the flightcrew was committed to continuing the takeoff. Witnesses saw the pylon and engine assembly travel up and over the left wing after it separated, and the deformation of the pylon's forward bulkhead was consistent with their observations. The left wing's leading edge skin forward of the pylon's front bulkhead was found on the runway with the pylon structure. There was no evidence that the pylon and engine assembly struck any critical aerodynamic surfaces of the aircraft or any of the flight control surfaces. Since the loss of thrust provided by the No. 1 engine and the asymmetric drag caused by the leading edge damage would not normally cause loss of control of the aircraft, the Safety Board sought to determine the effects the structural separation had on the aircraft's flight control systems, hydraulic systems, electrical systems, flight instrumentation and warning systems, and the effect, if any, that their disablement had on the pilot's ability to control the aircraft. As the engine separated from the aircraft, those accessories which were driven by the engine were lost. This incIuded the pumps which provided pressure to the aircraft's No. 1 hydraulic system, and the a.c. generator which provided electrical power to a.c. generator bus No. 1. During a routine emergency wherein the No. 1 engine ceases to operate, all of the services provided by these accessories will remain operable, deriving their respective hydraulic pressure and electrical power from redundant sources driven by one or both of the remaining aircraft engines. However, when the engine separates from the aircraft, the hydraulic pressure and supply lines connecting the pumps with the system are severed, the hydraulic system loses all of its fluid, and thus, hydraulic pressure is not recoverable. The separation of the engine and pylon also severed the electrical wire bundles inside the pylon. These included the main feeder circuits between the generator and the No. 1 a.c. generator bus. Although this would remove the normal source of power from the bus, the bus could have been powered by the a.c. tie bus, which is powered by generators on the other engines. The No. 1 a.c. generator bus is connected to the a.c. tie bus through a bus tie relay. Protective logic is provided in the aircraft's electrical system. If an electrical fault is detected on the generator bus, the protective logic will cause the bus tie relay to trip, which will open the circuit between the generator bus and the tie bus. This prevents a fault on one generator bus from affecting the aircraft's remaining electrical services. In this accident, the loss of the CVR and certain parameters on the FDR provided evidence that the No. 1 bus tie relay opened when the engine separated, probably as a result of transient short circuits during the separation. The Safety Board concludes that the electrical system's protective circuitry functioned as it was intended and power to the No. 1 generator bus and the services powered by that bus, including d.c. bus No. 1 and left emergency a.c. and d.c. buses, were lost. None of these buses was restored for the remainder of the flight. The flightcrew might have been able to restore the No. 1 generator bus and all of its services by activating the guarded bus tie relay switch on the electrical and generator reset panel. This action would have been effective only if the bus fault sensed during the separation was temporary. The evidence indicated that the left emergency a.e. and d.c. buses, and the No. 1 d.c. bus could have been restored separately by the activation of the emergency power switch and the No. 1 d.c. tie switch in the cockpit. There was no evidence to indicate that this was done. The Safety Board believes that the flightcrew probably did not try to restore the lost electrical power, either because of the nature of the overall emergency involving other systems, which they probably perceived to be more critical than the electrical problems, or because the time interval did not permit them to evaluate and respond to the indicated electrical emergency. The Safety Board does not criticize the crew's inaction in this regard; however, since electrical power was not restored, the captain's flight director instrument, several sets of engine instruments and, most importantly, the stall warning and slat disagree warning light systems remained inoperative. Because of the designed redundancy in the aircraft's hydraulic and electrical systems, the losses of those systems powered by the No. 1 engine should not have affected the crew's ability to control the aircraft. However, as the pylon separated from the aircraft, the forward bulkhead contacted and severed four other hydraulic lines and two cables which were routed through the wing leading edge forward of the bulkhead. These hydraulic lines were the operating lines from the leading edge slat control valve, which was located inboard of the pylon, and the actuating cylinders, which extend and retract the outboard leading edge slats. Two of the lines were connected to the No. 1 hydraulic system and two were connected to the No. 3 system, thus providing the redundancy to cope with a single hydraulic system failure. The cables which were severed provided feedback of the leading edge slat position so that the control valve would be nulled when slat position agreed with position commanded by the cockpit control. The severing of the hydraulic lines in the leading edge of the left wing could have resulted in the eventual loss of No. 3 hydraulic system because of fluid depletion. However, even at the most rapid rate of leakage possible, the system would have operated throughout the flight. The extended No. 3 spoiler panel on the right wing, which was operated by the No. 3 hydraulic system, confirmed that this hydraulic system was operating. Since two of the three hydraulic systems were operative, the Safety Board concludes that, except for the No. 2 and No. 4 spoiler panels on both wings which were powered by the No 1 hydraulic systems, all flight controls were operating. Therefore, except for the significant effect that the severing of the No. 3 hydraulic system's lines had on the left leading edge slat system, the fluid leak did not play a role in the accident. During takeoff, as with any normal takeoff, the leading edge slats were extended to provide increased aerodynamic lift on the wings. When the slats are extended and the control valve is nulled, hydraulic fluid is trapped in the actuating cylinder and operating lines. The incompressibility of this fluid reacts against any external air loads and holds the slats extended. This is the only lock provided by the design. Thus, when the lines were severed and the trapped hydraulic fluid was lost, air loads forced the left outboard slats to retract. While other failures were not critical, the uncommanded movement of these leading edge slats had a profound effect on the aerodynamic performance and controllability of the aircraft. With the left outboard slats retracted and 811 others extended, the lift of the left wing was reduced and the airspeed at which that wing would stall was increased. The simulator tests showed that even with the loss of the No. 2 and No. 4 spoilers, sufficient lateral control was available from the ailerons and other spoilers to offset the asymmetric lift caused by left slat retraction at airspeeds above that at which the wing would stall. However, the stall speed for the left wing increased to 159 KIAS. The evidence was conclusive that the aircraft was being flown in accordance with the carrier's prescribed engine failure procedures. The consistent 14! pitch attitude indicated that the flight director command bars were being used for pitch attitude guidance and, since the captain's flight director was inoperative, confirmed the fact that the first officer was flying the aircraft. Since the wing and engine cannot be seen from the cockpit and the slat position indicating system was inoperative, there would have been no indication to the flightcrew of the slat retraction and its subsequent performance penalty. Therefore, the first officer continued to comply with carrier procedures and maintained the commanded pitch attitude; the flight director command bars dictated pitch attitudes which decelerated the aircraft toward V2, and at V2 + 6, 159 KIAS, the roll to the left began. The aircraft configuration was such that there was little or no warning of the stall onset. The inboard slats were extended, and therefore, the flow separation from the stall would be limited to the outboard segment of the left wing and would not be felt by the left horizontal stabilizer. There would be little or no buffet. The DFDR also indicated that there was some turbulence, which could have masked any aerodynamic buffeting. Since the roll to the left began at V2 + 6 and since the pilots were aware that V was well above the aircraft stall speed, they probably did not suspect that the roil to the left indicated a stall. In fact, the roll probably confused them, especially since the stickshaker had not activated. The roll to the left was followed by a rapid change of heading, indicating that the aircraft had begun to yaw to the left. The left yaw -- which began at a 4! left wing down roll and at 159 KIAS--continued until impact. The abruptness of the roll and yaw indicated that lateral and directional control was lost almost simultaneous with the onset of the stall on the outboard section of the left wing. The simulator tests showed that the aircraft could have been flown successfully at speeds above 159 KIAS, or if the roll onset was recognized as a stall, the nose could have been lowered, and the aircraft accelerated out of the stall regime. However, the stall warning system, which provided a warning based on the 159 KIAS stall speed, was functioning on the successful simulator flights. Although several pilots were able to recover control of the aircraft after the roll began, these pilots were all aware of the circumstances of the accident. All participating pilots agreed that based upon the accident circumstances and the lack of available warning systems, it was not reasonable to expect the pilots of Flight 191 either to have recognized the beginning of the roll as a stall or to recover from the roll. The Safety Board concurs. In addition, the simulator tests showed that the aircraft could have been landed safely in its accident configuration using then current American Airlines procedures. The simulator tests also disclosed that the aircraft could have been landed with an asymmetric leading edge slat configuration. The speed margins during the final positions of the landing approach are also very small; however, the landing situation is considered less critical since additional thrust is readily available as required to either adjust the flightpath or accelerate the aircraft. In addition, service experience has shown that loss of slats on one wing during the approach presents no significant control problems. The pilot's adherence to the airspeed schedules contained in the company's engine-out emergency procedure resulted in the aircraft's entering the stall speed regime of flight. Had the pilot maintained excess airspeed, or even V+ 10, the accident may not have occurred. Since the airspeed schedules contained in American Airlines' emergency procedures at the time of the accident were identical to those currently contained in the emergency procedures of other air carriers, the Safety Board believes that speed schedules for engine-out climb profiles should be examined to insure that they afford the maximum possible protection. In summary, the loss of control of the aircraft was caused by the combination of three events: the retraction of the left wing's outboard leading edge slats; the loss of the slat disagreement warning system; and the loss of the stall warning system -- all resulting from the separation of the engine pylon assembly. Each by itself would not have caused a qualified flightcrew to lose control of its aircraft, but together during a critical portion of flight, they created a situation which afforded the flightcrew an inadequate opportunity to recognize and prevent the ensuing stall of the aircraft. DC-10 Design and Certification The pylon design, and in particular the aft bulkhead and its upper flange, satisfied the fail- safe requirements of the 1965 Federal Aviation Regulations. The stress analysis of the pylon structure showed that the stress level in the upper flange of the aft bulkhead was well below the fatigue damage level and the material was not considered to be vulnerable to stress corrosion. Therefore, since it was not necessary to apply fail-safe criteria to the flange, the design did not provide an alternate path for the transmittal of loads in the event the flange failed. Although the flight tests conducted after the accident disclosed that additional thrust loads were being imposed on the aft bulkhead which were not accounted for in the original certification analysis, the stress levels were still below the fatigue-damage level. In addition, postaccident tests and analyses of alternate load paths for other pylon structural members showed that, even with a failed thrust link, the bulkheads could carry the takeoff thrust load. Furthermore, the postaccident inspections of the DC-lO's did not disclose any evidence of fatigue damage on any of the bulkheads within the fleet. Therefore, the Safety Board finds that the original certification's fatigue-damage assessment of fatigue damage was in conformance with the existing requirements. The Damage-Tolerance concept embodied in the December 1, 1978, amendment to 14 CFR 25.571 levies different requirements on the certification of structural design. While the regulations in effect prior to the adoption of this amendment considered susceptibility of undamaged structure to fatigue, this new concept requires that an evaluation of the strength, detail design, and fabrication must show that catastrophic failure due to fatigue, corrosion, or accidental damage will be avoided throughout the operational life of the aircraft. The evaluation must include a determination of the probable locations and modes of damage due to fatigue, corrosion, or accidental damage. If a part is determined to be susceptible to these types of damage, its operational life must be established by analysis and supporting tests. The operational life must be consistent with the onset of damage and its subsequent growth during testing. The results of these tests and analyses are used to establish inspection areas and frequencies to monitor the structural integrity of the part. Had the requirement for accidental damage evaluation been in effect when the the DC-10 was designed, one might expect that such consideration would have been given to accidental damage to the upper flange of the pylon aft bulkhead. However, this would still have depended upon the interpretation of the type of accidental damage required to be considered. The manufacturer contends that accidental damage should be limited to damage which can be inflicted during routine aircraft maintenance or servicing, such as contact at galley and cargo doors or dropping of tools in areas of frequent maintenance. Based on this interpretation, the accidental contact between the pylon aft bulkhead and the wing-mounted clevis probably would not have been considered since it did not constitute routine maintenance. And, even had this accidental contact been considered, the design may not have been different; however, more stringent inspection requirements might have been imposed, particularly following maintenance. Following the accident, the FAA required McDonnell- Douglas to conduct a damage-tolerance assessment of the pylon structure in accordance with the new regulation. When the program was conducted it was presumed that a crack in the bulkhead flange could be detected visually before it was 3 inches long and that the residual strength of the damaged element would far exceed the operational load requirements. Based on these criteria, the analysis and tests showed that the design meets the current damage-tolerance requirement. Although the design of the pylon complied with the strength requirements of the regulations, the Safety Board believes that neither the designers nor the FAA certification review team adequately considered the vulnerability of the structure to damage during maintenance. In several places, clearances were unnecessarily small and made maintenance difficult to perform. Historically, pylons have had to be lowered and replaced for many reasons, such as ground accidents, fatigue, and corrosion. In fact,- parts of the pylon structure are either on a sampling inspection or l 00-percent inspection schedule. Under these circumstances, McDonnell-Douglas should have foreseen that pylons would be removed, and therefore, the mating parts of the aft bulkhead should have been designed to eliminate, or at least minimize, vulnerability to damage during maintenance. Whenever major components are made up of parts that can be removed, the design must protect each part from damage during removal or reinstallation. Either the parts should be made strong enough to withstand inadvertent contact, or clearances should be provided that will not allow contact. The pylon aft bulkhead could have been designed so that the upper part of the lug would bottom on the base of the wing-mounted clevis, before the upper spar web and aft bulkhead flange assembly contacted the clevis ear. On the actual design there is only .080-inch clearance between the bolt heads on the flange assembly and the clevis with the pylon installed. With adverse tolerances, this clearance of the fitting can be reduced to less than .030 inch. The evidence, provided by a dimensional analysis, which included the thickness of the shims, showed that an interference fit of about .030 inch could have existed. Following the accident, interference was also found in some other aircraft in which shims were installed. In order to reinstall a pylon with an interference fit between the aft bulkhead flange assembly and the wing clevis, the flange assembly would have to be brought into contact with the wing clevis and the flange would have to be loaded and deflected enough to allow the bushing and bolt to be inserted through the clevis and spherical joint. Although tests showed that the load required to create this deflection would not fracture the flange, the maintenance operation, regardless of the procedures used, would be difficult to perform and would be particularly vulnerable to damage-producing errors. Thus, the Safety Board concludes that the basic design of the aft attachment of the pylon to the wing was unnecessarily vulnerable to maintenance damage. 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 airworthiness regulations in effect when the DC-10 was certificated were augmented by a Special Condition, the provisions of which had to be met before the aircraft's fully powered control system would be certificated. The Special Condition required that the aircraft be capable of continued flight and of being landed safely after failure of the flight control system, including lift devices. These capabilities must be demonstrated by analysis or tests, or both. However, the Special Condition, as it applied to the slat control system, was consistent with the basic airworthiness regulations in effect at the time. The basic airworthiness regulations specified requirements for wing flap asymmetry only and did not include specific consideration of other lift devices. Because the leading edge slat design did not contain any novel or unusual features, it was certificated under the basic regulation. The flap control requirements for symmetry and synchronization were applied to and satisfied by the slat system design. Since a malfunction of the slat actuating system could disrupt the operation of an outboard slat segment, a fault analysis was conducted to explore the probability and effects of both an uncommanded movement of the outboard slats and the failure of the outboard slats to respond to a commanded movement. The fault analysis concluded that the aircraft could be flown safely with this asymmetry. Other aircraft designs include positive mechanical locking devices to prevent movement of slats by external loads following a primary failure. The DC-10 design did not include such a feature nor was it deemed necessary, since compliance with the regulations was based upon analysis of those failure modes which could result in asymmetrical positioning of the leading edge devices and a demonstration that sufficient lateral control was available to compensate for the asymmetrical conditions throughout the aircraft's flight envelope. The flight tests conducted to evaluate the controllability of the aircraft were limited to a minimum airspeed compatible with stall-warning activation predicated upon the slat- retracted configuration. The takeoff regime at lower airspeeds was not examined in flight. However, analysis of the takeoff regime showed that, with all engines operating, the aircraft would be accelerated to and maintain a positive stall margin throughout the flight. The analysis also showed that if a loss of engine thrust and slat retraction were to occur during takeoff, the aircraft's capability to accelerate to and maintain a positive stall margin was compromised. Further consideration of this hazardous combination was limited to a mathematical probability projection, which showed that the combination was extremely improbable. Thus, the design was accepted as complying with the requirements. If the structural loss of a pylon had been included in the probability projection, the vulnerability of the hydraulic lines and position feedback cables may have influenced adversely the probability projection. Also, the influence on aircraft control of the combined failure of the hydraulic and electrical systems was not considered. When aircraft controllability was first evaluated based on asymmetric leading edge devices, it was presumed that other flight controls would be operable and that slat disagree and stall warning devices would be functioning. Flight 191 had accelerated to an airspeed at which an ample stall margin existed. Postaccident simulator tests showed that, if the airspeed had been maintained, control could have been retained regardless of the multiple failures of the slat control, or loss of the engine and Nos. 1 and 3 hydraulic systems. On this basis alone, the Safety Board would view the design of the leading edge slat system as satisfactory. However, the additional loss of those systems designed to alert the pilot to the need to maintain airspeed was most critical. The stall warning system lacked redundancy; there was only one stickshaker motor; and the left and right stall warning computers did not receive crossover information from the applicable slat position sensors on opposite sides of the aircraft. The accident aircraft's stall warning system failed to operate because d.e. power was not available to the stickshaker motor. Even had d.c. power been available to the stickshaker motor, the system would not have provided a warning based on the slats retracted stall speed schedule, because the computer receiving position information from the left outboard slat was inoperative due to the loss of power on the No. 1 generator bus. Had power been restored to that bus, the system would have provided a warning based on the slat retracted stall speed. However, in view of the critical nature of the stall warning system, additional redundancy should have been provided in the design. In summary, the certification of the DC-10 was carried out in accordance with the rules in effect at the time. The premises applied to satisfy the rules were in accordance with then accepted engineering and aeronautical knowledge and standards. However, in retrospect, the regulations may have been inadequate in that they did not require the manufacturer to account for multiple malfunctions resulting from a single failure, even though that failure was considered to be extremely improbable. McDonnell-Douglas considered the structural failure of the pylon and engine to be of the same magnitude as a structural failure of a horizontal stabilizer or a wing. It was an unacceptable occurrence, and therefore, like the wing and horizontal stabilizer, the pylon structure was designed to meet and exceed all the foreseeable loads for the life of the aircraft. Therefore, just as it did not analyze the effect the loss of a wing or horizontal stabilizer would have on the aircraft's systems, McDonnell- Douglas did not perform an analysis based on the loss of the pylon and engine. Logic supports the decision not to analyze the loss of the wing and horizontal stabilizer. With the loss of either of these structures, further flight is aerodynamically impossible and the subsequent effect of the loss on the aircraft's systems is academic. However, similar logic fails to support the decision not to analyze the structural failure and loss of the engine and pylon, since the aircraft would be aerodynamically capable of continued flight. 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 damage 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. 3.1 Findings FINDINGS 10. The flightcrew flew the aircraft in accordance with the prescribed emergency procedure which called for the climbout to be flown at V2 speed. V2 speed was 6 KIAS below the stall speed for the left wing. The deceleration to V2 speed caused the aircraft to stall. The start of the left roll was the only warning the pilot had of the onset of the stall. FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} Report to the Administrator on the Investigation of the Compliance of the DC-10 Series Aircraft with Type Certification Requirements under Asymmetric Slat Condition, July 9, 1979. {2} Technical Report No. 79-1365, Estimating the Probability of Asymmetric Deployment of the Leading Edge Slat System of the DC-10 Aircraft, J. H. Wiggins Company. From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:44 Message-ID: In article dkhodges@aol.com (Dkhodges) writes: >A question to those who know much more than I about the airline industry: >Why is it that aerial re-fuelling, which has gained wide acceptance as a >military technology has not gained the same acceptance in the civiian >sector. It seems a reasonable way to fly longer routes with less >expensive aircraft, and perhaps a lucrative field for a "tanking" service >as well. A big chunk of fuel burn occurs on takeoff, where, at sea level, burn rates can range from 10,000 lbs/hr/engine (747) to 18,000 lbs/hr/engine on some large turbofans (such as the 777). If the airplane is already in cruise, which generally operates at a much lower rate (3000-4000 lbs/hr/engine on the 747, at cruise altitude), it makes more sense to extend the range of the aircraft than put it through another cycle. "But I said use a TANKER". And so you did. Instead of putting the airliner through a cycle, you're putting the tanker through the cycle. The end result is the same: you're wasting a tremendous amount of fuel, unnecessarily. PLUS the wear and tear, acquisition, and operating costs of the tanker. PLUS the operating costs of the airplane already in the air. Plus lost time coordinating the rendezvous. Plus the safety factors involved in a mid-air hook-up, training requirements, etc. Also, keep in mind that tankers are more or less just regular airliners, with an ability to refuel other airplanes. Unless special accomod- ations are made, the onboard fuel capacity is the same as for their civilian equivalent. The other airplanes are taking fuel from the onboard capacity of the tanker. A tanker refuelling another big airplane of the same type is likely to be a losing proposition, and, in military experience, it is not unheard of for multiple tankers to be used in a refuelling mission. Tankers make much more sense when used by the military. A max-performance climb out of an aircraft carrier, for example, may leave fuel significantly exhausted, so a quick "top-off" at altitude could be just the thing to complete the mission. The military is also not accountable to the types of cost-accounting which the civilian sector must balance the books with. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Doug Snow (HUF)" Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:45 Message-ID: On 7 Jul 1996, Dkhodges wrote: > A question to those who know much more than I about the airline industry: > Why is it that aerial re-fuelling, which has gained wide acceptance as a > military technology has not gained the same acceptance in the civiian > sector. It seems a reasonable way to fly longer routes with less > expensive aircraft, and perhaps a lucrative field for a "tanking" service > as well. > One reason this that FAR Part 121 prohibits formation flying by any aircraft operated under it. And an in-flight refuel would definitely qualify as a formation flight operation. I am unable to remember the precise reg section, but it's in there! ----- Douglas Snow (HUF) dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie American International Airways (AIA/HUF) SITA=HUFOOCB From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Kevin & Amy Clifford Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:45 Message-ID: Dkhodges wrote: > > Why is it that aerial re-fuelling, which has gained wide acceptance as a military technology has not gained the same acceptance in the civiian > sector. I can think of two reasons airlines don't use air refueling. First is expense. It costs as much or more to fly and maintain the tanker as it does an airliner. Therefor, it's cheaper to land the airliner, refuel, and continue the flight. Secondly, air refuel is dangerous. It takes a great deal of practice and skill to do it, and do it safely. If anything goes wrong you could loose both aircraft. Also, I don't think the airlines could afford the additional training costs. Kevin Maintainer From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling 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: 09 Jul 96 13:09:45 Message-ID: dkhodges@aol.com (Dkhodges) writes: >A question to those who know much more than I about the airline >industry: Why is it that aerial re-fuelling, which has gained >wide acceptance as a military technology has not gained the same >acceptance in the civiian sector. It seems a reasonable way to fly >longer routes with less expensive aircraft, and perhaps a lucrative >field for a "tanking" service as well. It's horribly expensive. It would expose PX to mid-airs. The cockpit crew would need to keep current; hence more training costs. It's of dubious use when there are lots of hubs to refuel at, anyhow. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433 From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:45 Message-ID: dkhodges@aol.com (Dkhodges) wrote: >A question to those who know much more than I about the airline industry: >Why is it that aerial re-fuelling, which has gained wide acceptance as a >military technology has not gained the same acceptance in the civiian >sector. It seems a reasonable way to fly longer routes with less >expensive aircraft, and perhaps a lucrative field for a "tanking" service >as well. I would assume that the inherently great risk of putting two large aircraft in such close proximity makes it a no-go for passenger aircraft. I'm sure the insurance underwriters would have a field day if a commercial airline were to make aerial refuelling a routine operation. -- 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 Jul 9 13:09:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:45 Message-ID: dkhodges@aol.com writes: >A question to those who know much more than I about the airline industry: >Why is it that aerial re-fuelling, which has gained wide acceptance as a >military technology has not gained the same acceptance in the civiian >sector. It seems a reasonable way to fly longer routes with less >expensive aircraft, and perhaps a lucrative field for a "tanking" service >as well. (1) Cost. it's *expensive* to fly two aircraft when one will do. Planes are pretty cheap to fly once they're airborne, but getting them off the ground and servicing them is a major part of the cost. A tanker carries no payload. ("Payload" in this case being defined as "load that pays".) (2) Safety. Re-fuelling accidents figure pretty highly in military in-flight aircraft loss statistics. Commercial airliners aren't *allowed* to get that close to another aircraft, and for good reason. Aerial refuelling is an example of the very different priorities of military and commercial aviation. Military transports are intended to provide a rapid response. Landing and re-fuelling takes time, whereas if you can be getting where you're going and refuelling at the same time, you can get your resources on the ground at the destination crucial hours ahead of when you would have got there otherwise. Cost is much less an issue. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sjames@usa.pipeline.com (Steve James) Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Pipeline Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:46 Message-ID: >A question to those who know much more than I about the airline industry: >Why is it that aerial re-fuelling, which has gained wide acceptance as a >military technology has not gained the same acceptance in the civiian >sector. It seems a reasonable way to fly longer routes with less >expensive aircraft, and perhaps a lucrative field for a "tanking" service >as well. For several reasons, some of which follow: 1. Passenger safety. Too many pax are anxious enough when we do something like fly parallel approaches separated by several hundred feet; they would absolutely die if we refueled behind a tanker. Plus, imagine trying to get the FAA to approve something like this! Then you have crew currency, weather, etc. to deal with. 2. Not that cost effective. Even ignoring the safety/regulatory aspects of it all, refueling a carrier really would not be that cost effective. There would have to be coordination between tanker/receiver aircraft, they each would have to orbit in a designated airspace for their rendezvous, thereby costing the receiver approximately 15 minutes of enroute time (and that's if both aircraft got airborne on time!), you would still have to pay the tanker aircraft lease, fuel, crew, etc. even though they did not generate any revenue dollars. Just that last fact alone would kill any profitability the receiver might have had. 3. Why do it in the first place? Several aircraft are efficient enough to make virtually any feasible revenue flight currently. To refuel just to stretch the legs of what, a 737 (?), simply isn't smart. The cheaper aircraft are simply not designed for passenger comfort to transport people that far. Flying a 737 BWI-LAX is about as far as most people are going to want to go on such a plane. Refueling it so it could reach Hawaii would be impractical when you could just put a widebody on the run and fill it to the gill with pax and cargo. In fact the freight it would carry alone would probably make money for the carrier, and the pax would be gravy. (Expensive gravy, to be sure....) -- Steve James From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Doug Snow (HUF)" Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:46 Message-ID: On 7 Jul 1996, Jeff Givens wrote: > Anybody notice about one year ago NE removed all the data plates on their > DC-9's from the main doorway? Now they are in the flight deck, above the > jump seat. > > I was on a flight recently and someone was joking about the age of the > aircraft (a -10 to boot) and asked the F/A if she could find out for them. > The F/A was standing right at the cockpit and could easily see the plate > but responded that she has no way of knowing. > _______________________________________________________________ It is very likely that the F/A simply didnt know how to find out. Most F/As are not techno-wizards by any sense of the imagination, and, having worked at NW in MSP before and knowing a few F/As personally, I know for a fact that there is no section on how to read a manufacturer's data plate in their In Flight Service Manual. However, I have a Northwest Airlines Fleet Info page, at http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie/nwafleet/fleet.html that lists all the DC9s and their initial service dates. ----- Douglas Snow (HUF) dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie American International Airways (AIA/HUF) SITA=HUFOOCB From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Ed S." Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:46 Message-ID: Jeff Givens wrote: > > I was on a flight recently and someone was joking about the age of the > aircraft (a -10 to boot) and asked the F/A if she could find out for them. > The F/A was standing right at the cockpit and could easily see the plate > but responded that she has no way of knowing. Well, it's a good PR move..... This drum is beat constanly, but: AGE doesn't matter, if it is a REAL airline (like NW)....the oldest planes in the country, if run by a major, are CREAMPUFFS...they are completely rebuilt every few years. Look at any AMR 727....they all look like they just rolled out of the factory... > > "I will not buy this record, it is scratched." "My hovercraft is full of eels...." Ed S. From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:46 Message-ID: 73727.644@compuserve.com (Jeff Givens) wrote: >Anybody notice about one year ago NE removed all the data plates on their >DC-9's from the main doorway? Now they are in the flight deck, above the >jump seat. > Thats funny. I often travel with a co-worker who always reads the data plate on McD aircraft, and announces the age of the ship in a not-too-quiet voice as he boards the plane- especially if its more than 10-15 years old. I've made a habit of not walking down the jetway anywhere near him anymore... -- 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 Jul 9 13:09:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:46 Message-ID: In article , 73727.644@compuserve.com (Jeff Givens) wrote: > I was on a flight recently and someone was joking about the age of the > aircraft (a -10 to boot) and asked the F/A if she could find out for them. > The F/A was standing right at the cockpit and could easily see the plate > but responded that she has no way of knowing. > It is easy to guess the age of a DC-9-10. The first airplane went into airline service in December of 1965 and the last in November of 1968. The age possibilities are from 27.5 to 30.5. Al least they are well flight tested!!. After November of 1968, the production was all DC-9-30 or later, except for a few DC-9-30's whose last delivery was in 1969. -- Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:47 Message-ID: I would never expect an F/A (not the average, run of the mill type) to know where to find the data plate on the airplane. THey *should* be able to show you the Airworthiness Certificate however... Jennings Heilig From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jvogel@crl.com (John M. Vogel) Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest] Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:47 Message-ID: A. Funda Ergun (ergun@theory.lcs.mit.edu) wrote: : Last month, on my way from Boston to Philadelphia in a really bad : storm, during mid-flight, we saw a sudden flash of light, and felt : a major jolt. The plane, after tilting severely and bouncing up and down ... : no idea about how dangerous or commonplace this was. I know planes are : designed to handle lightning (otherwise how would you expect to put a : large chunk of metal inside storm clouds safely?), but how OK is it exactly : to be hit? (in our case even the lights didn't go off) : Is it a pretty common thing to happen? Has anybody crashed because of it? Most of the time nothing bad happens. However, Illinois governor Jim Edgar's plane was struck a couple of months ago and an interior fire resulted. The fire was extinguished and no one was hurt. Lightning leaves little more than a scorch on metal airframes. It can punch holes in composites, however. John jvogel@crl.com From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rob Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: TaC Ltd. Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:47 Message-ID: In Asia the aircraft flying here are hit by lightning quite often. Normally no damage but sometimes minor pitting to the sufrace, occaisionaly a lot of damage. From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael Bain Subject: re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:47 Message-ID: We were hit by lightning in a 777 test flight on approach to Boeing Field. People on the ground saw it pass through. Other than the loud noise, it didn't seem to have an affect. (Of course, we have some very good pilots ...) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bain Boeing Commercial Airplane Group wk: michael.bain@boeing.com hm: mbain@wolfenet.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jon Ward Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The End at Infinity Reply-To: Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:47 Message-ID: ergun@theory.lcs.mit.edu "A. Funda Ergun" writes: > (I presume the plane could take some throwing around but the electrical > system might die.) I can't say anything about mechanical and hydraulic systems. However, the electronic units that the company I work for makes have large amounts of lightning protection. Lightning strike tests are one of the standard tests for qualification. I have seen transorbs take up a 1/3 of a card before today. To be honest, the things we do to our units amaze me. Salt spray, full functionality between -40 and +70 oC, vibration profiles over 7G acceleration, EMC testing (some units have input levels of less than 10mV). We throw ridculous enviromental extremes at the damn things and _still_ they work. Aerospace is an unforgiving enviroment. > It was an interesting experience in how slowly time passes during distress :-) Yes. The prospect of imminant death does strange things to one's mental processes. I presume (for the purposes of lighting strike) that one can treat the body of the plane as a Faraday cage. 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 Tue Jul 9 13:09:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Clarinet details on Delta 1288 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: 09 Jul 96 13:09:47 Message-ID: The [Delta] was a JT8D-219, vice a JT8D-217 engine involved in the Nebraska TWA en route shutdown.. ~14,000 JT8D engines in aircraft operated by 350 airlines, ~1,000 in the JT8D-200 series..... [I wonder how many hours on JT8's; and their MTBF...] -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433 From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@netcom.com (Pete Coe) Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:48 Message-ID: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) writes: >Few months ago, Airbus threatened to sue Boeing for falsely claiming the >A340 could only cruise at around 0.78 Mach. A few days ago, I browsed >through the schedules of three airlines (Lufthansa [LH], Cathay Pacific >[CX] and Singapore [SQ]). I'm not really trying to make a point here. >It's just some trivial information. Here's the comparison: I thought the 747 was historically the fastest of the current airliners anyway. More recent design practice has decided that it's cruising speed is a little to high, so one would expect the A340 to be slower. As a data point, looking at the BA timetable for JFK-LHR, the times vary vary from 6:40 (747-Classic) to 7:10 (767), and a direct comparison of the same flight number which switches between 767 and DC-10 mid season shows (for JFK-LGW), 7:00 DC-10 and 7:15 for the 767. So within the Boeing family, planes have got slower with the newer designs. On a personal note, I can remember flying LHR-LAX in the 70's in a DC-10, and watching in the next flight level a Lufthansa 747 ever so slowly overtaking us. From kls Tue Jul 9 13:09:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 09 Jul 96 13:09:48 Message-ID: >within the Boeing family, planes have got slower with the newer designs. Not entirely true -- while the 757 and 767 are slower than the 747, the 777 has nearly the same cruise speed as the 747. -- 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 Wed Jul 10 12:47:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dave@dogwood.com (Dave Cornejo) Subject: CFV: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo moderated Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers Followup-To: poster Reply-To: mtac@infobahn.net Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:11 Message-ID: FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) moderated group misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Newsgroups line: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Questions/comments regarding air cargo. (Moderated) Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 30 Jul 1996. This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions about this proposal should be directed to the proponent. Proponent: Michal Douglas Proponent: Martin Brennan Votetaker: Dave Cornejo RATIONALE: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo The air industry is well supported in the areas of recreational flight by several very good newsgroups. The commercial air industry is likewise well supported in the area of general passenger airline information. All that is missing is the existence of a newsgroup dedicated to the air cargo and freight forwarding industry. Currently, air cargo makes up more than 35% of the total value of all goods shipped anywhere in the world and employs thousands. Questions and comments realated to the operations of domestic and international air carriers would be discussed as well as addressing the interests of small package air freight companies. The air related interests of the freight forwarding community would also be discussed as there is no existing source for exchange of this information. CHARTER: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Discussion will be allowed on a variety of subjects deemed either too specific in nature or inappropriate by the charters of the existing newsgroups. Individuals and companies will be allowed to request and trade information and comments on the status of the air cargo industry. Exportation questions would be addressed for the beginner as well as specific inquires by shippers. (i.e. "Who supplies ground handling in Merida, Mexico?" or "How do I clear customs in Austrailia?") Shared experiences of both the air cargo and forwarding community would provide immensely helpful information to each other in regard to the do's and don'ts of dealing with unfamiliar airports, cultures, regulations, companies, procedures, and governments. Discussions of a political/violent/inflammatory/abusive nature will not be allowed. Any blatant advertisements, illegal rate discussions, or overblown press releases will likewise be excluded by the moderators. This is not a group in which general aviation or passenger flights may be discussed - there are other groups for those categories. This group is purely intended for those who own, import, export, operate in, or are interested in the business of air cargo and domestic/international air shipping procedures. The group will be moderated by experts in the field of air cargo and freight forwarding. They will insure the validity of posts and eliminate repetitive, redundant, illegal, and obviously inappropriate posts. All nationalities of airlines will be allowed. The language of the group will be English. END CHARTER. MODERATOR INFO: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Moderator: Jim Powell Moderator: Martin Brennan Moderator: Michal Douglas Administrative contact address: aircargo@cris.com Article submission address: aircargo@cris.com END MODERATOR INFO. HOW TO VOTE Send E-MAIL to: mtac@infobahn.net Your e-mail message should contain one and only one of the following statements: I vote YES on misc.transport.air-industry.cargo I vote NO on misc.transport.air-industry.cargo You may also vote ABSTAIN or CANCEL; these are not counted as votes and don't affect the vote count. Anything else will be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. The votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledgment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly. If you later change your mind you may vote again from the same email address; only your last valid vote will count. VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: Standard Guidelines for voting apply. One person, one vote. Votes must be mailed directly from the voter to the votetaker. Anonymous, forwarded or proxy votes are not valid; this includes votes generated by WWW/HTML/CGI forms. Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions will mean that your vote does not get counted. Duplicate votes are resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote. Addresses and votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results post. The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not redistribute this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted to news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited copies of this CFV will result in those votes being cancelled. When in doubt, ask the votetaker. Common errors include quoting the entire article and sending your vote to the vote-takers personal address. Either of these two could result in your vote not being counted. DISTRIBUTION: This CFV has been cross-posted to: alt.business.import-export alt.disasters.aviation misc.transport.air-industry sci.aeronautics.airliners rec.aviation.ifr rec.aviation.piloting Pointers to the CFV will be posted by the proponent in: alt.business.import-export.services rec.aviation.owning rec.aviation.marketplace This CFV will also be sent to these mailing lists: HTFN m.t.a-i.c. AIRLINE From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: widgetboy1@aol.com (WidgetBoy1) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: widgetboy1@aol.com (WidgetBoy1) Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:11 Message-ID: >I believe that the JT8D engine has kevlar blade containment on the fan case, >but not in the inlet. Does anyone know whether the fuselage is locally >beefed up to absorb the energy of a blade impact? Yes, I believe there is a titanium lining for such instances. From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@barder.Princeton.EDU (Pablo Wangermann) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Laboratory for Control and Automation Princeton University Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:12 Message-ID: >>Delta Flt 1288, and MD-88 flight from Pensacola to Atlanta had the port >>engine fly apart during takeoff ground roll. Latest news this morning is that the "titanium hub cracked 2/3 1/3." This sounds like a very rare type of failure compared to, say, a blade loss. This was from NPR this morning. John Wangermann From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:12 Message-ID: >lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Chilukuri) wrote: >I believe that the JT8D engine has kevlar blade containment on the fan case, >>but not in the inlet. Does anyone know whether the fuselage is locally >beefed up to absorb the energy of a blade impact? I'm not in propulsion so this is conjecture not necessarly fact. The engine shroud is tested for a single blade failure, not catastrophic failure of the entire section. The fuselage of the -909 aircraft used for demonstration trials of the propfan was reenforced as the prop was not conatined/ducted. I don't think that the fuselage is reinforced for 'normal' engines. If it were, the windows would have to be plugged (in the same manner as a turbo-prop). >PS: What in the world is that large elliptical structure that is laying on >the ground, just ahead of the fire truck? It is the tail cone. The tail cone is dropped automatically when the rear door is opened when 'armed.' The tail cone is on a bungee cord connected to the emergancy evacuation slide. The bungee pulls the slide release, comes under tension from the fall, then pulls back on the cone. Due to the geometry of the bungee cord to tail cone, the cone is pulled off to one side, clear of the slide. My opinions only, of course. Brian From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: egotrip@lesol1.dseg.ti.com (Mike Neus) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Texas Instruments Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:12 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... >The press reported that the JT8D is used on a variety of other types >of planes, but my somewhat cynical view of the press was unfulfilled >until early this morning, when CNN noted that the JT8D is the engine >type used on ValuJet's fleet. (Never mind that, except for a couple >of MD-80s which ValuJet never operated, they are *very* different >versions of the JT8D.) I believe the P&W JT8D, of varying configurations, is used almost exclusively on all DC-9 aircraft (including the MD-XX series), and the side engines of 727's. In other words, the media's statement about the JT8D's role on a variety of aircraft is fact, and the "discovery" about Valuejet's DC-9 engines is nothing that should surprise or worry anyone. From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:12 Message-ID: >>my somewhat cynical view of the press was unfulfilled until earlyxs >>this morning, when CNN noted that the JT8D is the engine type used >>on ValuJet's fleet. >I believe the P&W JT8D, of varying configurations, is used almost exclusively >on all DC-9 aircraft (including the MD-XX series), and the side engines of >727's. The *side* engines on a 727? What do you think is in the middle?! There were some Stage III 727 proposals that involved replacing the #1 and #3 engines (with RR Tays, I think) while leaving the JT8D in the #2 position so as to avoid the significant expense of modifying the S-duct or its intake, but to my knowledge it's not been done. (The Dee Howard 727 conversions for UPS and perhaps others involve replacing all three engines; the modified #2 intake is quite distincive.) I'd be very surprised to see any airline willing to operate a type with two different engines on the same airframe. The maintenance folks would be incredibly irritated by such a monster! Back to the JT8D, it's also on first generation 737s (-100 and -200) and the rare Dassault Mercure. I think some Caravelles had them instead of RR Avons, but my references don't support that. Maybe it was just a test. >In other words, the media's statement about the JT8D's role on a >variety of aircraft is fact, and the "discovery" about Valuejet's DC-9 >engines is nothing that should surprise or worry anyone. But the media not jumping on it, despite the fact that it is of utterly no significance, would have been surprising, which was my point. -- 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 Wed Jul 10 12:47:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael Bain Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:13 Message-ID: >>>>> "Jerry" == Jerry Steele writes: Jerry> While I was in an Airbus 340 from Munich to Chicago, just off Jerry> Newfoundland at 39000 ft we encountered some chop. In my over Jerry> 25 years of being a passenger this certainly was far from Jerry> severe. Nonetheless, the crt monitor at the front of the Jerry> business class section where they display flight data, as well Jerry> as every seat video display, and the cabin lights flickered Jerry> violently on and off several times as the turbulence rocked the Jerry> aircraft. Jerry> Nonetheless, this was unnerving and left me with a poor Jerry> impression of the A340. Especially since on my way over I had Jerry> an impeccable, and incredibly enjoyable flight on a 777. Which I've been on A320 flights and criticized the quality of the airplane based on the cabin interior. But that isn't fair. I didn't realize it at the time. The cabin interior and entertainment systems are purchased by the airline separately. Entertainment systems can be installed after delivery, and often are. Unfortunately the passenger's opinion on an airplane is based on their experience in the cabin, over which an airframe manufacturer has little control. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bain WebMaster Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Cabin Systems wk: michael.bain@boeing.com hm: mbain@wolfenet.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "If we were meant to fly, we wouldn't keep losing our luggage." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: glenn@ims.uni-stuttgart.de (Glenn Carroll) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: IMS, University of Stuttgart Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:13 Message-ID: In article , shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) writes: |> In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM |> (Karl Swar |... |> > 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. |> |> The NTSB report was faulty. For example there was no failure of the control |> system. The crash was due to a stall. The airplane had flown for over 40 |> seconds when the pilot, trained to fly at the V2 speed(1.2 times the stall |> speed), slowed down. This is the second time in recent weeks that I've read of a fatal accident caused by a preventable stall, the other incident being the BirgenAir B757 crash, where the instruments supposedly said "Speed up!!" and "Slow down!!" at the same time, and the pilot made the wrong choice (at least, that is the speculation prior to the NTSB report). Why did the pilot in the accident mentioned above slow down to V2? It sounds like some kind of SOP which could have been dispensed with. The BirgenAir decision seems even more dubious. Unless I'm much mistaken, a B757 is not so overpowered that the engines can push it past the max airframe speed in level flight. This one was climbing and relatively full, which suggests that an overspeed airframe failure was all but impossible. I'd be interested to hear otherwise. glenn 8<============================================== Glenn Carroll glenn@ims.uni-stuttgart.de Institut fuer Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung Azenbergstr. 12 70174 Stuttgart (49)711-121-1387 office Germany (49)711-121-1366 fax From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: wangermn@barder.Princeton.EDU (Pablo Wangermann) Subject: Re: Eastwind 737 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Laboratory for Control and Automation Princeton University Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:13 Message-ID: In article , wrote: >An Eastwind 737 on approach to Richmond VA experienced an uncommanded >rudder input on 9 June. Early reports were that the standby actuator was >"mis-rigged". I think Aviation Week has an article in its recent >edition...but mine has (as usual) not shown up yet. The New York Times >has an article in Today's edition (available on the web too). > >Dale Tuttle > I've read the AvWeek and NYT reports so can adda bit of detail here. The Eastwind 737-200 (an ex US AIr aircraft) had apparently recently had an almost complete rudder rebuild. Apparently one of the few unchanged parts was the yaw damper. The 737 experienced an uncommanded roll - the pilot regained control by switching off the yaw damper. The pilot thought the roll was about 20-30 deg, but analysis of the FDR suggests it was about 10. On subsequent inspection it was found that the yaw damper was "mis-rigged", so that instead of having -3,+3 deg motion, it was -1.5/+4.5 motion. Npw as I understand it, a reason why the yaw damper or another rudder actuator has not been pinned as the cause of the Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh crashes is that invcestigators could not produce the rudder deflections required in order to achieve the departures from the flight path that occurred. The questions that arise from the Eastwind incident are: i) Would a +4.5 deg yaw damper deflection be enough to cause the flight paths seen in the two fatal accidents ii) If it's possible to mis-rig a yaw damper 50%, could it be mis-rigged even worse (say, 0,+6 deg) iii) If, after all the attention to these incidents, yaw dampers are being mis-rigged, how common is this in the 737 fleet? Any aircraft mechanics/aircraft engineers care to comment on the yaw damper design and its installation? John Wangermann [Cross posting to m.t.a-i] From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Daan Vlaskamp Subject: Re: request inf on registration number of crashed ilyurin 76 in kinshasa Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:13 Message-ID: >On June 6th 1996 an Ilyurin 76 crashed at Ndili airport in Kinshasa, >Zaire. >Can anybody help me identify this plane? I am specifically looking for >registration number and airline company. If anyone would know things >like the flying routes, which airports it frequented, past history >etc. of this plane, that too would be very usefull. According to the Dutch magazine Scramble it was IL-76MD UR-76539 of Hoseba Airlines, c/n 0033442234. Hoseba also visits Maastricht Airport sometimes. Daan Vlaskamp The Neteherlands From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Spelling of "vortex" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:13 Message-ID: Geno Rice wrote on Sun Jul 7 23:02:27 1996:- > I don't know British usage, but I suspect the Latin plural may > be preferred. Collins English Dictionary gives "vortexes" and "vortices" as alternative spellings, with no indication that either is preferred, or that one or the other is more common in the US. Personally, I have always used "vortices", and didn't know of the alternative until now. 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 Wed Jul 10 12:47:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: pbeker@crl.com (Pavel Beker) Subject: Re: delta LA-Hong Kong flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:13 Message-ID: yungi@lansol.com (Yung-I Chu) writes: >>The question arises: where does Delta use all of their MD-11s now? > >NRT & NGO And Europe... and ATL-PDX and ATL-LAX. From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:14 Message-ID: Jon Ward wrote on Tue Jul 9 21:28:00 1996:- > I presume (for the purposes of lighting strike) that one can treat the body > of the plane as a Faraday cage. That was always my understanding. However, I have heard that the increasing use of composites in airframe construction has significantly reduced the "Faraday cage" properties of modern airliners. Anyone know anything about this? 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 Wed Jul 10 12:47:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:14 Message-ID: >> I presume (for the purposes of lighting strike) that one can treat the body >> of the plane as a Faraday cage. >I have heard that the increasing use of composites in airframe >construction has significantly reduced the "Faraday cage" properties >of modern airliners. To my knowledge, the pressure hull of the fuselage is still aluminum on all current airliners, so this shouldn't be a big problem yet in that area. There are composite floor beams on the 777, I think, but they would not affect the Faraday Cage. The weather radar is not protected, of course, but that's always been the case. However, with composite stabilizers and fuel tanks in the stabilizers on some types, this might make a crash like the Baltimore one more likely. I don't know if any types with composite stabilizers have fuel tanks in them, though it's bound to happen eventually if it hasn't yet. -- 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 Wed Jul 10 12:47:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Oscillation during flight Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011 Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:14 Message-ID: >>Sounds like an autopilot failure.<< The 727 is notorious for having an autopilot that 'porpoises'. It's generally caused by slop in the linkage in the elevator and stabilizer position sensors. This can also be caused by a bad air data computer or the pitch computer. From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: conly@bvsd.k12.co.us Subject: Re: The ATR72 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Reply-To: conly@bvsd.k12.co.us Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:14 Message-ID: In , S.Catt@lancaster.ac.uk (Stephen Catt) writes: >Last Friday we flew from Poznan to Warsaw on an ATR72 (twin >engine turboprop) belonging to LOT, the Polish national airline. My >question is - who makes this plane? It's not one I've come across before. >TIA >Steve > The ATR72 is made by Avions de Transport Regional. The ATR organization has both French and Italian roots. It is a cooperative company of Aerospatiale in France and Aeritalia in Italy. Hope this helps! David Conly conly@bvsd.k12.co.us http://bvsd.k12.co.us/~conly From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Richard Rockers Subject: Re: The ATR72 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Anet Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:14 Message-ID: Stephen Catt wrote: > > Last Friday we flew from Poznan to Warsaw on an ATR72 (twin > engine turboprop) belonging to LOT, the Polish national airline. My > question is - who makes this plane? It's not one I've come across before. Steve - The ATR 42/72 is made by the Avions de Transport Regional. ATR is a joint development by France's Aerospatiale and Italy's Aeritalia. The 42 version first flew in Dec of 1985. The 72 version (stretched version with larger engines) first flew a couple of years ago. I hope you enjoyed the flight. The company that I work for maintains the PW120 and PW127 engines that are installed on that aircraft. Best regards..... From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jhacker@ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey Hacker ) Subject: Re: The ATR72 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:14 Message-ID: In S.Catt@lancaster.ac.uk (Stephen Catt) writes: > >Last Friday we flew from Poznan to Warsaw on an ATR72 (twin >engine turboprop) belonging to LOT, the Polish national airline. My >question is - who makes this plane? It's not one I've come across before. >TIA >Steve > > The ATR-72 is manufactured by Aeritalia (Italy) and Aerospatiale (France) in a joint venture. The aircraft is built in France and is widely used throughoutthe world, largely in commuter service. The ATR-72 and its smaller cousin, the ATR-42, are flown in the U.S. and Mexico by commuter affiliates of Aeromexico, American, Continental, Delta, TWA, and Mexicana, as well as Mahalo Air in Hawaii. It is a nice aircraft, IMO. Jeff From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:15 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: 10 Jul 96 12:47:15 Message-ID: Peter Hamer wrote: > >... > If the weak-link in N-version programming is the fact that the requirement > is ambiguous and difficult to understand, surely the same holds true for > formal methods? The formalization of the requirements might be internally > water-tight, but its chances a of capturing the intentions of a large and > complex informal spec are questionable. >... It's certainly true that specifying the requirements is the most critical and difficult part of software engineering. I have never personally used formal methods, so I'm only speaking from second hand knowledge here. But my impression from talking to some of those who have developed the methods is that the requirements specification is the area that will require the biggest culture change when one uses formal methods. On the STOL/MTD program I wanted to try to express the flight control software specifications in PROLOG logic statements with the aim of being able to identify possible states which were undesireable. This was before I knew anything about formal methods. I was unsuccessful in the attempt, and a big reason was that the requirements came in all different forms, and it was a major effort to try to combine them into a single form. And let's face it, this is essentially what software design and coding is all about. You really need to start with the method at the outset, and then use your chosen language to express all the requirements from the top level on down. The big advantage that formal methods gives you at this stage is that the specification is comprehensive - it covers not only what the software must do, but what it must not do. I suspect that the process of formally expressing your requirements also helps to uncover "fuzzy thinking" in the process, and thus may lead to a better specification. However, I agree completely that formal methods do not substitue for engineering competence and the knowledge that you need to solve the problem in the first place. TS From kls Wed Jul 10 12:47:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety,sci.engr,comp.software-eng,comp.software.testing Path: bounce-back From: koopman@cs.cmu.edu (Phil Koopman) Subject: Re: N-version software compared to others Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Carnegie Mellon University, EDRC Date: 10 Jul 96 12:47:15 Message-ID: P.G.Hamer@nortel.co.uk (Peter Hamer) wrote: >If the weak-link in N-version programming is the fact that the requirement >is ambiguous and difficult to understand, surely the same holds true for >formal methods? The formalization of the requirements might be internally >water-tight, but its chances a of capturing the intentions of a large and >complex informal spec are questionable. I have found that there's nothing like executability in a design (or specification) to make people think about all the little stuff that falls through the cracks otherwise -- an increase in watertightness. BUT, does this mean we need N-version specifications? And what of the design document for the executable specification? And what about the compilers for the specification language? >I'm not arguing against formal methods, just saying that a system >development path using them shares some of the failure mechanisms >of more traditional system development paths. Finding out what >the user needs [ie should have asked for] remains a hard problem. Absolutely. And, in fact, sometimes even finding out who the *real* users/stakeholders are is an interesting problem. And, when there are multiple stakeholders you will often find that their requirements conflict. -- Phil Phil Koopman -- koopman@cs.cmu.edu -- http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~koopman From kls Wed Jul 10 12:59:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: asecen@lfs.loral.com (Al Secen) Subject: Good book on Jet Engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lockheed Martin Federal Systems - SIP Date: 10 Jul 96 12:59:33 Message-ID: Can anyone recommend a good instructional book (not too detailed) that covers the various types of jet engines? Something that discusses axial flow, bypass, ramjet, et al.? Any help would be appreciated. Al Secen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | The views expressed | | are my own and not | | those of my employer. | | | From kls Wed Jul 10 12:59:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Dorsett Subject: [: A310 EROPS] Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Supersedes: Reply-To: rdd@netcom.com Date: 10 Jul 96 12:59:34 Message-ID: A310 with P&W engines loses EROPS qualification. ================================================ After suffering a second engine failure en route this year on Sunday, June 30, A310s with P&W engines lost their EROPS qualification in Belgium. Fewer than 25 of A310s produced share the engine configuration involved. The problems are traced back to a failure of the forward bearing of the engine. On the A310, part of the engine nacelle is stressed to support the engine. This allowed for lighter engine / wing mountings, saving weight in the process. However, if the nacelle is not correctly aligned, extra stress is placed on the forward engine bearing, causing it to fail prematurely. As a result, the authorities lowered the time to replace the bearing from 10,000 hours to 6,000 hours. However, the bearing on the failed engine last sunday had fewer than 400 hours on it. The statistics for *in flight shut down* for the complete fleet of A310s with P&W engines still meet EROPS criteria. The statistics for the decision to withdraw the qualification are based on fewer than 20% of the world wide fleet. EROPS qualifications are sometimes *partially* based on experience of the engine on another airframe. The same P&W engine on other airframes has a much better *in flight shut down* rate, likely because these airframes do not use the concept of the stressed nacelle. GE engines on the same A310 also have a much better reliability. Apparently, the engine/airframe combination causes unwanted interference leading to the higher *in flight shut down* rate on the A310/P&W combination. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Fri Jul 12 11:49:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wingedhoof@aol.com (Wingedhoof) Subject: Re: Good book on Jet Engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: wingedhoof@aol.com (Wingedhoof) Date: 12 Jul 96 11:49:51 Message-ID: In article , asecen@lfs.loral.com (Al Secen) writes: >Can anyone recommend a good instructional book (not too detailed) >that covers the various types of jet engines? Something that >discusses axial flow, bypass, ramjet, et al.? > > P&W Operational Instruction (O.I.) 200 titled "The Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine and its Operation" is pretty good. I don't know of a good source, but you may be able to get one directly from P&W. It even has a part number: P&W 182408 From kls Fri Jul 12 11:49:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: "Y. Imagawa" Subject: Re: Good book on Jet Engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Reply-To: yimagawa@ix.netcom.com Date: 12 Jul 96 11:49:51 Message-ID: Al Secen wrote: > > Can anyone recommend a good instructional book (not too detailed) > that covers the various types of jet engines? Try the following: "The Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine & Its Operation" by United Technologies Pratt & Whitney "Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Technology" by Irwin E. Treager From kls Fri Jul 12 11:49:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Daan Vlaskamp Subject: Re: Good book on Jet Engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 12 Jul 96 11:49:51 Message-ID: At 12:49 10-07-96, you wrote: >Can anyone recommend a good instructional book (not too detailed) >that covers the various types of jet engines? Something that >discusses axial flow, bypass, ramjet, et al.? I can very much recommend the book "The Jet Engine" by Rolls Royce. The book is quite easy to read, and covers all topics in detail. The last couple of chapters are full of formulas etc., so that might be a little more difficult. I used it as background reading for my ATPL study and found especially the very nice graphics useful. It costs 25 British pounds, which is around $40. (good value for money). Only drawback: emphasis on Rolls Royce engines. I don't know if it's available anywhere in the US (I'm from The Netherlands, my dad brought it from England). You might be able to contact the Public Relations Department of Rolls-Royce in Derby England (sorry, I haven't got the address). Greetings, Daan Vlaskamp The Netherlands. From kls Fri Jul 12 11:49:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: Good book on Jet Engines 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: 12 Jul 96 11:49:51 Message-ID: Al Secen wrote: > > Can anyone recommend a good instructional book (not too detailed) > that covers the various types of jet engines? Something that > discusses axial flow, bypass, ramjet, et al.? Rolls-Royce Aero Engines (Derby, UK) have put out a very good book called "The Jet Engine" which covers all your points but of course focusses on R-R products. Regards, Tony Maddern From kls Fri Jul 12 11:49:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Artus_R@mediasoft.net (Richard Artus) Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NotMuch Date: 12 Jul 96 11:49:52 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >within the Boeing family, planes have got slower with the newer designs. > > Not entirely true -- while the 757 and 767 are slower than the 747, > the 777 has nearly the same cruise speed as the 747. > I cruise the B-777 at anywhere from .84 to .86 depending on what ATC needs From kls Fri Jul 12 11:49:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 12 Jul 96 11:49:52 Message-ID: In article , petercoe@netcom.com (Pete Coe) wrote: > I thought the 747 was historically the fastest of the current airliners > anyway. More recent design practice has decided that it's cruising > speed is a little to high, so one would expect the A340 to be slower. There is no such thing as too high a cruise speed. The faster the plane gets there, the better. HOWEVER, when increasing the cruise speed increases the fuel burn to the point where you sacrifice range or burn more fuel than the extra speed is worth, then speed becomes a factor. This is the case with the A-340. The 747 meets its range, fuel burn, and payload targets at a relatively high cruise speed. The A-340 can cruise every bit as fast as a 747 with no problems as far as flying is concerned. The problem is drag, which as you know, goes up as the speed goes up. In order for the A-340 to achieve the very long ranges of which it is capable, the cruise speed must be lowered to reduce the fuel burn. Part of the problem is that the A-340 apparently ended up with more drag from the outboard engines and pylons than was expected. When the cruise speed is pushed up, this extra parasite drag, plus the increased induced drag you're going to get anyway, increased the fuel burn to the point where the plane could not make the ranges it was supposed to with the advertised payload. Thus the lower cruise speed in comparison to the 747. To my knowledge, Boeing has never said the A-340 CAN"T cruise at whatever figure is claimed for it by Airbus, but that if it does, its range or payload will have to be reduced accordingly. If you look at the comparison of flight times on longer flights between the A-340 and the 747-400, the difference in cruise speed becomes very apparent. The 747 arrives a full 45 minutes sooner on some flights like Narita to Heathrow. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Fri Jul 12 11:49:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 12 Jul 96 11:49:52 Message-ID: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>within the Boeing family, planes have got slower with the newer designs. > >Not entirely true -- while the 757 and 767 are slower than the 747, >the 777 has nearly the same cruise speed as the 747. Also, isn't the "old design" 737 as slow or slower than a 757 or 767? And isn't the 727 faster than the 757 as well? I'm talking about the most efficient cruise speeds of the planes too. Obviously a 757 is more efficient than a 727, but the 727's efficiency peak is at a higher speed, correct? -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Fri Jul 12 11:49:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 12 Jul 96 11:49:52 Message-ID: >Also, isn't the "old design" 737 as slow or slower than a 757 or 767? Yes. This has been one reason why the 737 has lost sales to the A320 and its derivatives. The new wing on the 737-600/700/800 will give it higher, more competitive cruise speed. >And isn't the 727 faster than the 757 as well? Right again. Here's a summary of what AW&ST lists as the best cruise speed for various Boeing models: 707 M 0.80-.83 727 M 0.80-.84 737-100/200 M 0.73-.78 737-3/4/500 M 0.745 737-600 M 0.782 (shortest) 737-700 M 0.781 (same size as -300) 737-800 M 0.785 (longest) 747-100/200 M 0.84 747-300 M 0.85 747-400 M 0.86 757 M 0.80 767 M 0.80 777 M 0.84 They don't list a "best cruise speed" for Airbus, just "max. speed" which may be higher than best cruise: A300B2 M 0.86 A300 M 0.82 (all others, including current -600) A310 M 0.84 A320/19/21 M 0.82 A330/340 M 0.86 Other manufacturers: DC-9-10 M 0.75-.80 DC-9 M 0.76-.80 (all others, including MD-8x and MD-90) DC-10 M 0.82 (including MD-11) L-1011 M 0.83 -- 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 Sun Jul 14 22:43:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Picton Subject: Re: The ATR72 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Standard Aero Limited Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:21 Message-ID: conly@bvsd.k12.co.us wrote: > The ATR72 is made by Avions de Transport Regional. ATR recently > changed its name to Aero International (Regional) or AI(R). The US address is 13850 McLearen Road, Herndon, VA 22071 or Tel: 703-736-1080 and Fax: 703-736-4209. Source: AW&ST, June 17th. ---------------------- Paul Picton, P. Eng. Repair Engineer, PT6 Engine Line Standard Aero Limited Email: paulp@standardaero.ca Website: http://www.mts.net/~paulp From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Daussault Mercure (was Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:21 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: >Back to the JT8D, it's also on first generation 737s (-100 and -200) >and the rare Dassault Mercure. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I notice extreme visual similarities between this aircraft and the more recent Airbus A319/320/321. Even odder, I was reading in a 1977 airliners book that Daussault was considering a stretched CFM-56 powered Mercure for early 1980's delivery. Does the A320 derive from this 737 lookalike? -tim From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Dave Martin Subject: Re: FYI, B757 crash at Bermuda (NOT?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: INnet NV (post doesn't reflect views of INnet NV) Reply-To: dai@innet.lu Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:22 Message-ID: Brian A. Reynolds wrote: > .....er? But I thought that the accident was after take-off from Puerto Plata.... or has it moved to Bermuda? Regards, Dave. From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FYI, B757 crash at Bermuda (NOT?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:22 Message-ID: >I thought that the accident was after take-off from Puerto Plata.... >or has it moved to Bermuda? Obviously a minor bit of confusion on the original author's part. The crash took place off the coast of the Dominican Republic, near Puerto Plata, from whence the aircraft departed. -- 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 Sun Jul 14 22:43:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "John N. Cothran" Subject: Re: FYI, B757 crash at Bermuda. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:22 Message-ID: Rudi Vavra wrote: > > Brian A. Reynolds wrote: > > > 9) A stall is caused by disrution of airflow over the wings. If > > the aircraft's nose is excessively high, the airflow will be > > disrupted. The angle of attack (the angle of the aircraft > > centerline relative to actual direction of travel) is deteced by > > an Angle-of-Attack sensor (AOA for short) which is a vane like > > device which 'flies' in the airstream. If airspeed is sufficient, > > then the AOA will stay within limits. If the angle of attack > > vs airspeed is insufficient, then the AOA (as measured by the > > sensor) will be come excessive and generate a stall warning. > > WRONG! The AOA is the angle between the chord of the wing and > the relative airflow. The AOA can be exceeded at ANY airspeed and the > airplane will STALL at ANY airspeed once a critical AOA has been > exceeded. This is important. You CAN stall an airplane at any > airspeed. > > > 12) The flight crew experienced simultaneous stall and overspeed > > indications. In reacting to the overspeed warning, the nose > > was pitched up to decrease the airspeed. This increased the > > angle of attack, deepening the stall. > > 13) At some point the aircraft ceased to have sufficient airflow > > over > > the wings and stopped flying. > > The aircraft stopped flying AS SOON AS it stalled. It doesn't matter > how deep the stall is, after you stall a wing, lift drops > dramatically. The plane was probably kept in a stall > unintentionally, as the overspeed warning was still sounding. Usually > if you stall an airplane and hold it in a stall, it will drop one > wing quite suddenly and dramatically. In all probability, the > airliner went inverted, or close to it after it stalled.Obviously > there was not enough time and not enough altitude to recover from > this unusual attitude in this case. > > All the above is pure speculation based on my aeronautical knowledge. > I'll wait for the official findings in this case. > You are indeed correct, but I think the point of the earlier message was that the flight crew was receiving two distinct and very different set of inputs. The erroneous airspeed indication could indeed have been due dut condensation in the pitot-static system, although I would wonder why one system did and one didnt....if indeed the probes were left uncovered, my guess would be the proverbial "bug in the tube" problem. As an engineer in the flight simulation industry with over 15 years designing the math models used for flight training simulators for several aircraft, including both the B757 and B767, I concur that the aircraft's response in a stall would most likely be as you mentioned. The major problem in this incident seems to me to be the inability of the pilots to make the correct choice based on the information available to them at the time, and, let's face it, we may never know exactly what that was. As a pilot myself, I think this incident serves best as a reminder of what can happen when we as pilots forget to observe EVERY piece of data available to us, not the least of which is the "seat of the pants" data we get simply by having our asses strapped to the hardware. Let us not forget that even the best of modern avionics and flight management systems available to us today are not and never will be a substitute for plain old smarts. -- "A committee is the only known life form that possesses multiple stomachs and no brain" Lazarus Long From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: [: A310 EROPS] Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:22 Message-ID: Robert Dorsett (rdd@netcom.com) wrote: : A310 with P&W engines loses EROPS qualification. : ================================================ : After suffering a second engine failure en route this year on Sunday, June : 30, A310s with P&W engines lost their EROPS qualification in Belgium. Fewer Which P&Ws ? JTD9s or PW4000 ? Or is the newer engine not used on the A310? (The first A310-300 was delivered to Swissair, and had JTD9s) : than 25 of A310s produced share the engine configuration involved. The : problems are traced back to a failure of the forward bearing of the engine. -- Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE* FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus- From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: [: A310 EROPS] Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:22 Message-ID: >: A310s with P&W engines lost their EROPS qualification in Belgium. >Which P&Ws ? JTD9s or PW4000 ? The only Belgian-registered A310s I can find are four A310-222 models registered to Sabena. They have JT9D-7R4E1 engines, so I'd guess it's at least the JT9D versions. >Or is the newer engine not used on the A310? Delta's remaining A310s (A310-324(ET) models) have PW4152 engines, so yes, both PWs are used on the A310. -- 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 Sun Jul 14 22:43:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: johnmhunt@ipa.net (John M. Hunt) Subject: Re: Good book on Jet Engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet Partners of America Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:23 Message-ID: asecen@lfs.loral.com (Al Secen) wrote: >Can anyone recommend a good instructional book (not too detailed) >that covers the various types of jet engines? Something that >discusses axial flow, bypass, ramjet, et al.? A book which seems to meet your requirements is: Jet and Turbine Aero Engines by Bill Gunston Publisher is Patrick Stephens Limited ISBN 1-85260-463-8 I bought this book in England but presume it is available here. It was 18 pounds in the UK (about $28). It is dated 1995 and contains some information about new engines such as the GE90. If it is an update of an earlier edition (probably is) it certainly shows little signs of not being totally current in 1995. From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: Paul Picton Subject: Re: Good book on Jet Engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Standard Aero Limited Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:23 Message-ID: Al Secen wrote: > > Can anyone recommend a good instructional book (not too detailed) > that covers the various types of jet engines? Something that > discusses axial flow, bypass, ramjet, et al.? I would strongly recommend Rolls Royce's book, The Jet Engine. The book is full of color pictures and clear descriptions. A sample can be seen at the Rolls Royce Allison Engine site, http://www.allison.com. --------------------- Paul Picton, P. Eng. Repair Engineer, PT6 Turboprop Engine Line Standard Aero Limited Email: paulp@standardaero.ca Website: http://www.mts.net/~paulp From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Daan Vlaskamp Subject: stage III noise limitations Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:23 Message-ID: Could anyone give me more information on the coming "Stage III noise limitations" by ICAO ? (These frequently pop up in environmental discussions concerning our local airport). I would like to know which types would not be allowed anymore (which have to be modified/hushkitted/rendered out of service). I looked at the ICAO website but found no info. Does anyone know of a document somewhere on the Net ? Thanks, Daan Vlaskamp The Netherlands vlaskamp@cuci.nl From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: MD-90 experiences Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:23 Message-ID: Well, I have now logged a whole day's travel exclusively on MD-90's. If this keeps up, the plane may just win me over, after 20 years of absolutely detesting every DC-9 and derivative that came along. Even though its still too cramped for me (especially for the Washington National to DFW flight I made on one yesterday), the quiet and smoothness are wonderful. A few observations and questions: Do IAE V2500's leak a lot of oil? Most of the MD-90s I rode or saw on the runways (all Delta ships) have fairly badly stained engine nacelles, with lots of black streaking. The older 727s and MD80s with JT8D's tend to have much cleaner nacelles than the MD90's. Is it exhaust carbon due to the different thrust reverse mechanism? But I didn't think the IAE V2500 reversed the core flow anyway... Delta does seem to have some problems with MD 90 dispatch reliability. The flight I took from National to DFW was late, due to mechanical repairs needed on an earlier leg during the day. When I arrived at DFW, my flight to Austin had been cancelled- "mechanical trouble." An hour or so later, a second MD90 was being prepped for boarding, and the scheduled boarding time passed. Pretty soon the news was announced- "mechanical trouble". We finally got home on a flight that came in from Salt Lake at midnight (another MD-90), and was prepped for the short hop down to Austin. So, 3 out of 4 MD90s I came in contact with in one day had some sort of glitch. Quite a few passengers were very annoyed with Delta, McDonnell Douglas, and the fates in general last night. On the whole, I'm still favorably impressed with the plane. I'm sure most teething problems will clear up. As someone posted on another thread, the well maintained older planes are actually the creampuffs, and especially it seems when it comes to dispatch reliability. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:23 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: frank247d@aol.com (Frank247D) Subject: Ryan M-2 (A very old mail and passenger plane) 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: 14 Jul 96 22:43:23 Message-ID: Can anyone out there tell me something about a Ryan M-2 believed to be the 3rd model built? Russell Koetke, a retired USAF CMS whom I met At Seattle's Museum of Flight recently told me of this airplane. He had run across it in an old barn at Sidney Montana in spring 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 were hung leading edge down and it appeared to be restorable. Minot AF officials in 1960 met with a local pharmacist who was a part owner of the aircraft and got agreement to attempt restoration. After restoration the a/c was moved outside the VA hospital at Minot N. Dakota in a glass enclosure. Reportedly it has been taken out of this display, started up and taxied at some local fair times. Is this a/c stil at Minot and still operable? Does anyone have photos? We thought our M-2 here at the Museum was a sole survivor. Frank Leathley (Frank247D@aol.com) From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:24 Message-ID: In article , C. Marin Faure wrote: >The problem is drag, which as you know, goes up as the speed goes up. This is only partially correct. Below L/D max, drag increases as you slow down due to the increase in induced drag. >When the cruise speed is pushed up, this extra parasite drag, plus the >increased induced drag you're going to get anyway... This is incorrect. As you go faster, parasite drag increases, but since you are lowering your required angle of attack, induced drag decreases. Total drag (parasite + induced) is more or less U-shaped when plotted on a chart with airspeed on the X-axis, and Drag on the Y-Axis. The minima is at your best Lift to Drag ratio, which is also your best glide speed. -- 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 Sun Jul 14 22:43:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:24 Message-ID: >Well, it's a good PR move..... >This drum is beat constanly, but: AGE doesn't matter, >if it is a REAL airline (like NW)....the oldest planes >in the country, if run by a major, are CREAMPUFFS...they >are completely rebuilt every few years. Look at any >AMR 727....they all look like they just rolled out of the >factory... A few years ago, NW and Air Canada were considering pooling their fleets for a major overhaul (airframe and new engine type, and maybe avionics) to extend the life of the venerable -9's in their fleets. I believe another airline was also in the pot. In the end, fow whatever reason, this did not go ahead...I don't know why...Any comments? Alan Browne. From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sjames@usa.pipeline.com (Steve James) Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Pipeline Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:24 Message-ID: >> Anybody notice about one year ago NE removed all the data plates on their >> DC-9's from the main doorway? Now they are in the flight deck, above the >> jump seat. >> >> I was on a flight recently and someone was joking about the age of the >> aircraft (a -10 to boot) and asked the F/A if she could find out for them. >> The F/A was standing right at the cockpit and could easily see the plate >> but responded that she has no way of knowing. The FAs are not trained for specific cockpit procedures for every aircraft type. They are trained to open the aircraft specific doors, perform safety functions associated with that, and only then to give cabin service. To ask them what specific year that aircraft was rolled off the production line is absolutely asinine. These FA's may work a DC-10, a -9, 727, and then a 747 within the same duty period. To ask them the production rolloff time of each aircraft they may shuffle between is not a practible question. Any diesel 9 is going to be between 15-20 years, give or take 5. The exact year really does not mean squat, does it? More importantly is the overally airlines maintenance record. Established majors can keep 9's flying over 25 years, while cut-rate wanna be's may require scrutiny regardless of production line numbers. An example is "ValueJet", a misonomer, in that it acquired precisely those jets that the established majors wanted to get RID of because of high maintenance costs, then decided to fly just such jets using cut-rate maintenance contracts. Once again, you get what you pay for. Steve James From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:24 Message-ID: Michael Bain wrote on Wed Jul 10 20:58:25 1996:- > The cabin interior and entertainment systems are purchased by the > airline separately. Entertainment systems can be installed after > delivery, and often are. This statement surprises me. I am not familiar with the A340 entertainment systems, but just about everything on the A3xx family is computer controlled and integrated into the on-board network. On the B777, my understanding is that the in-flight entertainment systems are totally integrated into the computer network, and their design (not to mention ensuring that a failure in the entertainment software could not propagate to affect a more critical system) consumed quite a lot of Boeing's effort. > Unfortunately the passenger's opinion on an airplane is based on their > experience in the cabin, over which an airframe manufacturer has > little control. Well, as Bob Newhart (sp? - the "Button-Down Mind" man) said in his famous sketch on air travel: "You sit in your seat on the runway, and you comfort yourself with the thought that every little piece of this wonderful machine is a miracle of modern engineering. Then the ashtray falls off ... " >From the TV series "21st Century Jet", I gather that Boeing gave one heck of a lot of thought to cabin design, from the overhead space, to the leg-room, to the entertainment system. Certainly, nice points of cabin design feature very strongly in the promotional literature. Boeing are not only responsible for it, they're proud of it. This is not affected by the fact that the cabin is highly reconfigurable to operators' requirements (in itself one of the design points), nor by the fact that bits were subcontracted out. You wouldn't claim that Boeing were not responsible for the B777 flight control system just because they outsourced its software to GEC in Rochester. 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 Sun Jul 14 22:43:24 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Rudi Vavra" Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Goodfox Pty. Ltd. Reply-to: flying@ozemail.com.au Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:24 Message-ID: > This is the second time in recent weeks that I've read of a fatal > accident caused by a preventable stall, the other incident being the > BirgenAir B757 crash, where the instruments supposedly said "Speed > up!!" and "Slow down!!" at the same time, and the pilot made the > wrong choice (at least, that is the speculation prior to the NTSB > report). Why did the pilot in the accident mentioned above slow > down to V2? It sounds like some kind of SOP which could have been > dispensed with. The pilot slowed down to V2 BECAUSE he was trained to do so in that scenario. With the loss of one engine (remember, the crew did not know that they lost the whole engine including the pylon, the assumption was that the engine lost power), the SOP was to slow down to V2. This airspeed probably corresponds closely with the "best angle of climb" airspeed, and this procedure was implemented so that all ground obstacles are cleared safely before the crew "clean up" the airplane and decide on further action. In an emergency, you have to fly the airplane first. This is what the crew were doing. With the benefit of hindsight, higher airspeed should have been maintained, and control of the aircraft would not have been lost. Emergency procedures were changed accordingly. When it happened, though, the crew were doing everything as they were trained, and although it was the wrong thing to do in this case, in the majority of aviation incidents and accidents, the crew emergency training is the only thing that saves the lives of the passengers. If the same incident happened today, it'd most probably be just that, an incident, because the crew would react exactly as they were trained (SOP was revised after the accident). > The BirgenAir decision seems even more dubious. Unless I'm much > mistaken, a B757 is not so overpowered that the engines can push it > past the max airframe speed in level flight. This one was climbing > and relatively full, which suggests that an overspeed airframe > failure was all but impossible. I'd be interested to hear > otherwise.] Aaah, yes, but again, you are analysing this with the benefit of hindsight. Spatial disorientation is a very powerful and deceiving sensation. The only way to combat it is to trust your instruments. When your instruments don't agree, it's very hard to decide which instruments to trust. We are all human, and one of the human traits is to stick with your convictions. Once the crew make a decision and elect to trust one set of instruments, they will go with that decision even if all subsequent events try to tell them that their decision was wrong. It takes a clear analytical mind to evaluate these signs and break the chain. There are plenty of examples of this "fixation", the flight that went into the ground because the flight crew were trying to figure out whether the front gear was down and locked, or whether the green indication light was faulty. Even though the ground proximity warning sounded some twelve seconds (from memory, don't quote me on that) before impact, no one pulled back on the yoke, because the whole crew was convinced they were flying at 2000 feet. They convinced themselves that the GPW was faulty!!! (The power of assumption.) Rudi -- Rudi Vavra http://www.ozemail.com.au/~flying (Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines) -- <> From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: craig@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch) Subject: Re: Toilets on JAL FC Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Pacific Internet, Singapore Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:25 Message-ID: stevem@mail.sydney.net (Steve McGinley) wrote: >It was also reported in Sydney that the new toilets will have a window?? Many do. As I write this, I'm on an EVA 747 Singapore - Taipei - San Francisco, which has a window in the *huge* first class toilet. Cheers, Craig From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: McElravy Subject: RE: Toilets on JAL FC Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:25 Message-ID: If the lav is on an outside wall (terminology...) and is very big then the likelihood that it would have a window is pretty good. I read about these "SUPER LAVs" in the most recent AIRLINERS mag. Truly awesome. I think a window in the crapper would be great. . When you are trapped on the can a view would be nice. Is Boeing going to put the 777 "no slam can" on all its airliners? This would be a great place to start. Wouldn't it be funny if Boeing spun the technology off into a consumer product, like NASA/Fisher did with the space pen??? I'll keep an eye open for one at the Home Depot. On the same subject, what about the showers on the British Airways 747s? Are they for real? From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: hassan@shell.portal.com (hassan monu alam) Subject: Re: Toilets on JAL FC Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data) Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:25 Message-ID: Michael Zaller (mikoza@hooked.net) wrote: : hassan monu alam wrote: : > : > 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, Rumbold was working on a lavatory design with a bidet. I : believe they're being installed on a couple of Boeing jets for Saudia. : No kidding. That would make sense, since culturally they prefer water to paper for cleaning. (You can use your imagination for the rest :) : M Zaller -- Hassan Alam From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wingedhoof@aol.com (Wingedhoof) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: wingedhoof@aol.com (Wingedhoof) Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:25 Message-ID: Karl says: >There were some Stage III 727 proposals that involved replacing the >#1 and #3 engines (with RR Tays, I think) while leaving the JT8D in >the #2 position so as to avoid the significant expense of modifying >the S-duct or its intake, but to my knowledge it's not been done. >I'd be very surprised to see any airline willing to operate a type >with two different engines on the same airframe. The maintenance >folks would be incredibly irritated by such a monster! This mod was offered by Valsan. It involved replacing the two outboard engines with JT8D-200 series and hushkitting the center engine. The thrust reverser was eliminated from the center engine in the process. Several of these mods were sold. Delta may have been a customer. It really improved performance. Valsan has since gotten out of this business by selling it to someone else (sorry, can't remember who). Since many airlines operate both 727s and MD-8X, the engine mix might not have been too difficult to deal with. From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:25 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:25 Message-ID: >Back to the JT8D, it's also on first generation 737s (-100 and -200) >and the rare Dassault Mercure. I think some Caravelles had them >instead of RR Avons, but my references don't support that. Maybe it >was just a test. At one time, I read that the JT8D was the most widely used single type of turbofan in the world. Given that at that time, the 727 was the most widely produced single airliner, (and it uses 3 of them), and the 737 -100 and -200 as well as all DC-9's up until the MD 90 used them, I could EASILY believe it to be true. And yes, some Caravelles used them, and A6 Intruders use a derivative of the JT8D. It has been, and continues to be, one of the most reliable workhorses around. > >>In other words, the media's statement about the JT8D's role on a >>variety of aircraft is fact, and the "discovery" about Valuejet's DC-9 >>engines is nothing that should surprise or worry anyone. I heartily disagree! Yes, it is a fact that its the same engine (although a very different derivative) as used on DC-9's. HOWEVER! the fact that the media reported it AT ALL implies to many people that there is a causal connection. This is NOT true, and it is deceptive, irresponsible, and unprofessional of the media to raise such a red herring. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: steven tobey Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Flash-Net Internet Service Provider, 888-FLASHNET Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:26 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > >I believe the P&W JT8D, of varying configurations, is used almost exclusively > >on all DC-9 aircraft (including the MD-XX series), and the side engines of > >727's. > > The *side* engines on a 727? What do you think is in the middle?! > There were some Stage III 727 proposals that involved replacing the > #1 and #3 engines (with RR Tays, I think) while leaving the JT8D in > the #2 position so as to avoid the significant expense of modifying > the S-duct or its intake, but to my knowledge it's not been done. > (The Dee Howard 727 conversions for UPS and perhaps others involve > replacing all three engines; the modified #2 intake is quite > distincive.) > > I'd be very surprised to see any airline willing to operate a type > with two different engines on the same airframe. The maintenance > folks would be incredibly irritated by such a monster! > I'll stick my neck out and ask a dumb question, didn't FedEx reengine some of their B727s which resulted in this situation? Although I don't have my list of "N" numbers handy there are several of their B727s which have been reengined, maybe someone could confirm it for me? Steve From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:26 Message-ID: >I'll stick my neck out and ask a dumb question, didn't FedEx reengine >some of their B727s which resulted in this situation? ... maybe someone >could confirm it for me? Indeed they did. A fleet list that's just a bit over a year old shows ten modified 727-2S2F Advanceds in the FedEx fleet which have JT8D-217C engines in the #1 and #3 positions with the original JT8D-17A in the middle. Five more were listed as being due for conversion; this may have happened by now. The converted aircraft (and planned conversions) are registered N201FE thru N217FE, sans N202FE and N214FE which do not appear to be registered to FedEx. -- 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 Sun Jul 14 22:43:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:26 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >The *side* engines on a 727? What do you think is in the middle?! >There were some Stage III 727 proposals that involved replacing the >#1 and #3 engines (with RR Tays, I think) while leaving the JT8D in >the #2 position so as to avoid the significant expense of modifying >the S-duct or its intake, but to my knowledge it's not been done. >(The Dee Howard 727 conversions for UPS and perhaps others involve >replacing all three engines; the modified #2 intake is quite >distincive.) The UPS conversion is the RR Tay conversion. You are correct that all 3 engines are replaced. This conversion is only for the -100. There is a stage III conversion for the -200 known as the Valsan conversion. On this one the #1 and #3 are replaced with JT8D-217 or -219 "MD-80" engines, while the number two is typically a JT8D-17. >I'd be very surprised to see any airline willing to operate a type >with two different engines on the same airframe. The 727 can be operated with an engine "intermix". However it's typically just different series JT8D's; -7, -9, -15 or -17's. It's usually just temporary for maintenance convenience. Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ************************ Props are for boats! ************************ From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:26 Message-ID: In article , julian@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com wrote: > Rolls Royce name(d) their jet engines after rivers ie, Conway (VC10,707), > Spey (1-11, Phantom) etc. Personnally I think Trent is quite a classy name > for their most powerful engine. Don't ask me where the river actually is :) For what it's worth, the Trent runs from about the middle of England southeast for a little ways toward London and then turns northeast and runs to the east coast. Its valley carries part of the Trent and Mersey Canal, one of England's first and most important transportation routes. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cd@birch119.cray.com (Chris Dickson) Subject: re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Cray Research a subsidiary of Silicon Graphics, Inc. Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:26 Message-ID: In article , julian@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com writes: > > Rolls Royce name(d) their jet engines after rivers ie, Conway (VC10,707), > Spey (1-11, Phantom) etc. Personnally I think Trent is quite a classy name > for their most powerful engine. Don't ask me where the river actually is :) > > The Trent is actually the closest river to the RR manufacturing complex in Derby. One of my former Colleagues at an RR subsiduary experimented with canoeing to work (from Nottingham) along the river every morning. From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:27 Message-ID: "Philip Morten" wrote: > >British manufacturers named their engines like this: > >Rolls-Royce > Piston engines Birds of prey Condor, Kestrel, Falcon > Gas turbines Rivers Derwent, Nene, Tay >Bristol Mythology Jupiter, Pegasus, Hercules >Napier > Piston engines Edged weapons Sabre, Rapier, Javelin > Gas turbines Deer etc Gazelle, Eland Waittaminute! Wasn't the Napier Lion a piston engine? >Metropoliton Vickers Precious stones Beryl, Sapphire >Armstrong Siddeley > Piston engines Cats Cheetah, Lynx > Gas turbines Snakes Adder, Viper >de Havilland > Gas turbines G* Goblin, Ghost, Gyron Other than my one nitpick (and I could be wrong on that one) this is a very interesting list. I had never realized that there was a methodology in the naming. David Lednicer added: >P&W used stinging insect names for piston engines - Wasp, Hornet, >Yellow Jacket. The JT3/J-57 was originally the Turbo Wasp, but this >dissapeared and then everything became JTx and now everthing is PWxxxx. >GE never has named engines and Curtiss-Wright piston engines were always >windstorms (Cyclone, Whirlwind, etc.). The insect/windstorm names worked well early on, but when the R-4360 was called the "Wasp Major" and the R-3350 (I think..) was called the "Twin Cyclone", it was clear that the well was running dry. Somehow the "Pratt and Whitney Parasitic Multillid" just doesn't have a romantic ring to it... Besides, all red-blooded Americans will be more stirred by the image of a 4360 cubic inch piston engine than by any wasp name. Now what is that in liters? ;-) (Its about 71.4, by the way. Kinda makes even an 8 liter truck engine look tiny.) -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: peter neville gurnell Subject: Re: re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc. Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:27 Message-ID: > Rolls Royce name(d) their jet engines after rivers ie, Conway (VC10,707), > Spey (1-11, Phantom) etc. Personnally I think Trent is quite a classy name > for their most powerful engine. Don't ask me where the river actually is :) > Peterboro(ugh) England? From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Michaels (Paul Michaels) Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Scottish Internet Supplier Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:27 Message-ID: I want an engine named after MY river: Daugleddau (actually it's two rivers). The Trent runs within 5 miles of Derby where the Trent engine tests kept the neighbours awake and probably frightened the little fishes too. Paul Michaels, Aberdaugleddau (Milford Haven), Wales |-| || \----\ |o --|--| \w --------------------------------------| / ---^^^==============================================^^-- Paul Michaels From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Ron.Bevitt" Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: roncom Reply-To: "Ron.Bevitt" Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:27 Message-ID: In article , Richard Weatherill writes >Steve Lacker wrote: > >>On a less-than-serious note.... > >>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 Bristol Airplane Co. built aircooled radials when most UK competitors were using liquid cooling inline or "V".They had evocative names derived from classic mythology,such as "PEGASUS",winged horse and,best of all "HERCULES". Who could ever doubt the safety of a plane powered by these. The Mk III Halifax 4 engined bomber was used mainly by Canadian aircrew,and was considered superior in performance to the earlier Merlin engined types. To get back to airliners,my favourite "mill" has got to be the "WASP",if only for the unique and instantly recogniseable sound. PW were streets ahead when they designed this series. -- Ron.Bevitt From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:27 Message-ID: In article , ergun@theory.lcs.mit.edu says... > >to be hit? (in our case even the lights didn't go off) >Is it a pretty common thing to happen? Has anybody crashed because of it? I don't know about crashes...but I have seen pictures where lighting pierced the skin of a wing (or maybe it was the flap or aileron). a bit of scorching, with a very small hole in the center...It could not be seen in the photo if the under side was also pierced. I don't recall if it was possible to determine if it was composite or allu.. The Beechcraft Starship (now Raytheon) is an all composite, so no Faraday cage, or groundplane. This caused us problems with the Omega antenna installation. Alan Browne Canadian Marconi Co. From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: craig@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch) Subject: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pacific Internet, Singapore Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:27 Message-ID: In rec.travel.air, in a thread called "Turbulence injuries Qantas to Tokyo", the subject of litigation came up. I opined that there was no liability of the carrier, that it simply wasn't their fault. I recieved the following by email: > Clear air turbulence injuries are the fault of airlines, >100%.(US airlines). CAT can be detected easily by > radar. BUT the airlines have, in the US, lobbied > strongly against being required to get such radar. > This makes it their fault. IF they had the radar, > they could give good enough warning time Of course I can't mention the sender's name, but what he says is not my impression. Can others help clarify this? Are there advances in CAT detection/avoidance? Thanks, Craig From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: NYDU27A@prodigy.com (Geoffrey Mccarthy) Subject: Re: Spelling of "vortex" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:28 Message-ID: Brits are more likely than we Yanks to retain the Latin plurals. The Latin plural of vortex is vortices, just as the proper plural of index is indices, 'tho we hear indexes a lot, don't we... From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety,sci.engr,comp.software-eng,comp.software.testing Path: bounce-back From: dick@silicon.csci.csusb.edu (Dr. Richard Botting) Subject: Re: N-version software compared to others Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CS Dept., Calif. State Univ., San Bernardino Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety,sci.engr,comp.software-eng,comp.software.testing Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:28 Message-ID: Perhaps a good software development method for non-mass marketed software is one that forces the developer to ask nasty questions about the requirements, dig out the inconsistencies, nail the ambiguities, plug the holes with no known behavor. Also spot unrealistic assumptions and infeasible wishes... before spending a $1e6? N-version ( and 1-version) programming do not help with this. Upfront methods with a mathematical basis (JSP/JSD/VDM/SCR/RSML/...) do seem to do this however. Now, in the more rigorous methods (JSP/...) I've often seen almost identical solutions by parallel development teams. So N-version does not win you very much. -- dick botting http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick/signature.html Disclaimer: CSUSB may or may not agree with this message. Copyright(1996): Copy freely but say where it came from. I have nothing to sell, and I'm giving it away. From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: JetWayne@vonl.com Subject: 777 tail wag Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: LDS i-America Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:28 Message-ID: I haven't heard anything lately about Boeings problems with the 777. How bad was the yaw problem, have they found a fix, and are there ongoing complaints? JetWayne From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:28 Message-ID: In kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Overran the runway and damamaged beyond economic repair at Rio-Galeao. >I can't find the name of GIG (Rio's main airport) but that doesn't >sound right. I can't find it in my atlas, either, so I don't know >where it really is. (747-228B(C) sn 22427 ln 485) I was there a week ago. Rio Galeao is the intl a/p, a $50 cab ride out of town. It is where all the biggies arrive. The old airport is closer to downtown, and only for domestics. RD From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu (Richard N. Rea) Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:28 Message-ID: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) >Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps >Date: 07 Jul 96 14:08:59 >Overran the runway and damamaged beyond economic repair at Rio-Galeao. >I can't find the name of GIG (Rio's main airport) but that doesn't >sound right. I can't find it in my atlas, either, so I don't know >where it really is. (747-228B(C) sn 22427 ln 485) Galeao (there's a tilde over the a) is the principal (international) aeroport for Rio de Janeiro (located on Ilha do Governador - Governor's Island, just outside of town). The other main aeroport in Rio is Santos Dumont (closer to downtown Rio, much smaller than Galeao), and serves domestic traffic since the opening of Galeao. From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ISFSI Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:28 Message-ID: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >Overran the runway and damamaged beyond economic repair at Rio-Galeao. >I can't find the name of GIG (Rio's main airport) but that doesn't >sound right. Unless it's changed (my source is a bit old), GIG (ICAO: SBGL) is "Guanabara, Aeroporto Internacional do Rio de Janeiro." However, Aeroporto do Galeao (later Galeao International Airport), a military aerodrome, was the name of this airport until 1977, when the new terminal area was dedicated 20 April, the old Galeao terminal then being used for cargo/charter/executive ops. From kls Sun Jul 14 22:43:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: turbulence1 Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: C.R.I.U.P., Universite de Poitiers (FRANCE) Date: 14 Jul 96 22:43:29 Message-ID: What i know about AF747 mishaps in GIG is that it has something to do with the reverse. While the 747 touched down, the pilot put the reverses. But before apply power, the flight engineer has to confirm that the four reverse are locked. Up the N1 dial, for each engine, there is 2 light indicating the status of the reverse : "transit" and "locked". While the 4 light indicated that the 4 reverse were locked, the flight engineer announce " four reverse available ". In fact one of the ligth was giving the wrong information : one of the outside engine was not in reverse position. When the pilot applied the power , the aircraft slipped on the runway, he, then, collapsed on his landing gear.It is said that the four engine were blowed off the wing. I think that nobody was seriously injured. From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: arch6@inlink.com (Archibald McKinlay) Subject: B757 Engine Compressor Stalls over US Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McKinlay & Associates Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:45 Message-ID: Does anyone have details on engine compressor stall forcing landing from Miaml to Denver on United 757 around 14 July? My understanding was that stalls continued for some time and landing was required due to controllability fatigue in cockpit. Will this disrupt the ETOPS rating of the bird as the engine tests were accelerated and extrapolated? Or was consideration given to possible failures with offsetting data? -- 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 Tue Jul 16 13:51:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B757 Engine Compressor Stalls over US Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:46 Message-ID: >Does anyone have details on engine compressor stall forcing landing from >Miaml to Denver on United 757 around 14 July? ... >Will this disrupt the ETOPS rating of the bird as the engine tests were >accelerated and extrapolated? Are you talking about a 757 or a 777? MIA-DEN on UA would probably be a 757, but I'm not aware of any "accelerated and extrapolated" ETOPS testing of the 757. Note -- if it was a 757, odds are it was not an ETOPS aircraft since UA only has between five and ten ETOPS 757s. (Ten originally, but some were taken out of the ETOPS program, at least for a while.) Even if it's a non-ETOPS plane, it would influence the ETOPS rating, since the statistics are not based solely on ETOPS aircraft. When I was on a UA 747-400 that suffered a compressor stall, the pilots had to fill out all sorts of extra paperwork for the in-flight engine shutdown, because the PW4056 engine is similar enough to the PW4060 used by UA on their ETOPS-rated 767-322(ER)s. >My understanding was that stalls continued for some time and landing >was required due to controllability fatigue in cockpit. I don't think the crew would leave the engine running after a compressor stall, certainly not if the stalls continued. Once an engine is shutdown, they must land at the nearest available field. Fatigue is not an issue in that decision, though no doubt the pilots would be fatigued after such an episode. The ability to fly the plane with one engine windmilling should have been thoroughly evaluated during the basic certification process, never mind ETOPS. -- 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 Tue Jul 16 13:51:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:46 Message-ID: > With the benefit of hindsight, higher airspeed should have been > maintained, and control of the aircraft would not have been lost. > Emergency procedures were changed accordingly. When it happened, > though, the crew were doing everything as they were trained... In short -- see the signature quote. -- Mark Brader \ "Nitwit ideas are for emergencies. The rest of the msb@sq.com \ time you go by the Book, which is mostly a collection SoftQuad Inc., Toronto \ of nitwit ideas that worked. -- Niven & Pournelle From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:46 Message-ID: Steve Lacker wrote: > was clear that the well was running dry. Somehow the "Pratt and Whitney Good comments, but one little nitpick - it is never Pratt AND Whitney. The trademark is Pratt & Whitney. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Jul 16 13:51:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: McElravy Subject: RE: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:46 Message-ID: >They also do a nice job of naming their planes at British Airways. The >747s are named after cities, the 757s are named after castles, I'm not >sure what the 767s, A-320s, and 737s are named after, and the 777s >are >named after famous aviation figures. I am disappointed, however, that >there seems to be no plan at BA to name a 777 after R.J. Mitchell, the >designer of my favorite airplane, the Supermarine S-6b, and of course, >the Supermarine Spitfire. > >The US carried the engine-naming tradition through the demise of the >piston engine, with the Wasp and Whirlwind series of engines from >Pratt & >Whitney and Wright. It seems like naming each individual plane is a rather common practice on international airlines. U.S. airlines seem to only give their planes names when they are of a special breed. Too bad. Remembering that you were on the Western Pacific "Winter Wonderland Plane" is much easier than remembering that you were on N962WP. Just for laughs I checked the KLM webpage (www.klm.nl) and cracked their code. For those who care, it works out this way: A310 -- Artists (Rembrandt, Vermeer, van Gogh) MD-11 -- Women (Marie Curie, Florence Nightengale) 767-300 -- Bridges (Golden Gate, Brooklyn) 737-300, 400 -- Explorers (Marco Polo, Henry Hudson) 747-300 Combi -- Aviation Pioneers (Frank Whittle, Leonardo di Vinci) 747-300 Passenger -- Rivers (Indus, Missouri) 747-400 -- Cities (Atlanta, Nairobi, Melbourne) Fokker 100 -- Scientists/Inventors (I think, I wasn't too good at those ones, I hesitated even mentioning this one for fear of looking daft -- Leeuwenhoek, Oort) Quite clever. Many of the names were Dutch (Rembrandt), but some were non-Dutch (Marco Polo, Atlanta) names with instant recognizability. From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Michaels (Paul Michaels) Subject: Re: Good book on Jet Engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Scottish Internet Supplier Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:46 Message-ID: The address on the inside cover is: The Technical Publications Department Rolls-Royce plc Derby England No site or postcode but I'll bet it's on Victory Road, Derby DE24 8BX tel: 01332 242424 the ISBN is 0 902121 04 9 I have seen it in the Silk Mill Industrial Museum in Derby so it's probably available from non-RR sources -if the Silk Mill can be called a non-RR source. I got mine through RR Inc in Atlanta Ga. so it's worth trying them. I don't have an address for that mob anymore. ...and it is a good book. Paul Michaels, Aberdaugleddau (Milford Haven), Wales Paul Michaels From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Smith Subject: Re: Good book on Jet Engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:47 Message-ID: Al Secen wrote: > > Can anyone recommend a good instructional book (not too detailed) > that covers the various types of jet engines? Something that > discusses axial flow, bypass, ramjet, et al.? When I went to school I found a series of soft-cover books by Aviation Technicician Training Course quick handy. (Aviation Maintenance Publishishers Inc./ P.O. Box 890 / Basin WY / 82410) They have one called "Aircraft Gas Turbine Powerplants" and can be ordered by phoning 1-800-443-9250 order number # EA-TEP-1 -the cost of mine was $ 6.95 USD. (back in 1984). Good luck -- James S. Smith Marketing & Sales Manager Air Canada Enterprise Systems e-mail: SMIJIM01@mail.aircanada.ca From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: gerace@perth.DIALix.oz.au (Neil Gerace) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: home Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:47 Message-ID: Craig Welch (craig@pacific.net.sg) wrote: : In rec.travel.air, in a thread called "Turbulence injuries Qantas to : Tokyo", the subject of litigation came up. I opined that there was no : liability of the carrier, that it simply wasn't their fault. Notwithstanding whose responsibility it is to detect CAT, it should be the passengers' responsibility to strap themselves in, whether or not the sign is on. This would have prevented the more severe injuries, I think. Anyone who doesn't use the belt provided deserves all they get. ---- Neil S. Gerace / gerace@perth.DIALix.oz.au / Belhus, Western Australia Part-owner of Qantas, the world's safest airline. From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pierce@pat.mdc.com (Cole Pierce) Subject: Re: Spelling of "vortex" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MDSSC Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:47 Message-ID: In article , NYDU27A@prodigy.com (Geoffrey Mccarthy) writes: |> Brits are more likely than we Yanks to retain the Latin plurals. The |> Latin plural of vortex is vortices, just as the proper plural of index |> is indices, 'tho we hear indexes a lot, don't we... I actually heard a speaker use the term 'indicee' for the singular form of 'indicees.' Guess he never heard of 'index.' Going full circle, so to speak. The same fellow used "processees" for the plural of 'process,' even tho that's a french derivation, if I recall, rather than Latin-direct. Engineers sure talk funny. cp From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:47 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > The *side* engines on a 727? What do you think is in the middle?! > There were some Stage III 727 proposals that involved replacing the > #1 and #3 engines (with RR Tays, I think) while leaving the JT8D in > the #2 position so as to avoid the significant expense of modifying > the S-duct or its intake, but to my knowledge it's not been done. The Valsan 727 reengining program put JT8D-209s on the outboard pylons, but retained the earlier model JT8D in the #2 hole, but with no thrust reverser. Approximately 25 aircraft were reengined. > Back to the JT8D, it's also on first generation 737s (-100 and -200) > and the rare Dassault Mercure. I think some Caravelles had them > instead of RR Avons, but my references don't support that. Maybe it > was just a test. Yes, late model Caravelles (10B, 10R, 11R and 12) all had JT8Ds. Approximately 60 of these models were built. Also, the Kawasaki C-1A military airlifter is powered by JT8Ds. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Jul 16 13:51:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:47 Message-ID: > >Back to the JT8D, it's also on first generation 737s (-100 and -200) > >and the rare Dassault Mercure. I think some Caravelles had them > >instead of RR Avons, but my references don't support that. Maybe it > >was just a test. > > At one time, I read that the JT8D was the most widely used single type of > turbofan in the world. Given that at that time, the 727 was the most widely > produced single airliner, (and it uses 3 of them), and the 737 -100 and -200 as > well as all DC-9's up until the MD 90 used them, I could EASILY believe it to > be true. And yes, some Caravelles used them, and A6 Intruders use a derivative > of the JT8D. It has been, and continues to be, one of the most reliable > workhorses around. The Caravelle Super 12's recently retired by Air Inter were 8D powered. The A-6 Intruder was powered by the J52, (commercial designation JT8) which is an *ancestor* of the JT8D, not a development. The original JT8D was substantially a J52 with a fan added. The J52 was originally an engine for the Hound dog stand off missile used on B52s in the 60's. > >>In other words, the media's statement about the JT8D's role on a > >>variety of aircraft is fact, and the "discovery" about Valuejet's DC-9 > >>engines is nothing that should surprise or worry anyone. > > I heartily disagree! Yes, it is a fact that its the same engine (although a > very different derivative) as used on DC-9's. HOWEVER! the fact that the media > reported it AT ALL implies to many people that there is a causal connection. > This is NOT true, and it is deceptive, irresponsible, and unprofessional of the > media to raise such a red herring. This is certainly true, and a lamentably frequent occurence. -- Charlie Falke System Test Team Leader Pratt & Whitney Aircraft 203-565-9063 desk 1261 fax m.s. 121-05 203-565-6462 x286a stand 400 Main St. 203-565-1261 Fax, PW office, East Hartford, Ct 06108 Willgoos fuel lab Internet: falke@pweh.com From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wjcandee@smtp.ix.netcom.com (Bill Candee) Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:48 Message-ID: sjames@usa.pipeline.com (Steve James) wrote: > Established majors can keep 9's flying over >25 years, while cut-rate wanna be's may require scrutiny regardless of >production line numbers. An example is "ValueJet", a misonomer, in that it >acquired precisely those jets that the established majors wanted to get RID >of Er...I thought that Valujet was having difficulty finding DC9-30s precisely because Northwest (presumably an "established major" in anyone's book) had gobbled them up and was looking for more, just as Northwest was supposed to have been competing with VJ for those THY DC9s that everybody's bitching about. Also, given that this is "sci" aeronautics.airliners, I would point out that an actual factual analysis by the Washington Post, rather than presumptive comments by the poster, demonstrated that VJ paid about the same for maintenance on its DC-9s as did other carriers flying them. So much for "cut rate contracts". ---Bill Candee in NYC From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: egotrip@lesol1.dseg.ti.com (Mike Neus) Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Texas Instruments Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:48 Message-ID: In article , mail12083@pop.net says... > >Jeff Givens wrote: >> > >> I was on a flight recently and someone was joking about the age of the >> aircraft (a -10 to boot) and asked the F/A if she could find out for them. >> The F/A was standing right at the cockpit and could easily see the plate >> but responded that she has no way of knowing. I would suspect the F/A probably didn't know about the plate. There primary concern is getting you from point A to B safely, not determining the age of the plane. >Well, it's a good PR move..... >This drum is beat constanly, but: AGE doesn't matter, >if it is a REAL airline (like NW)....the oldest planes >in the country, if run by a major, are CREAMPUFFS...they >are completely rebuilt every few years. Look at any >AMR 727....they all look like they just rolled out of the >factory... Shoot, you should see the NW DC-9-30's. Many are in the process of a major refiting and if you happen to get one (I think) they are nicer than any plane on any airline I've ever been on. Granted the DC-9s are approaching 30 years of age, but it should be noted NW has not had a single accident with these planes. In fact, the last fatal NW accident I am aware of was ~1984 in Detroit on a MD-82 which at the time was a brand new plane (and was caused by pilot error). If I'm not mistaken NW has one of the best safety records of all the majors, and the DC-9 of varying flavors composes the largest percentage of NW's fleet. Quite a feat if you ask me. >> "I will not buy this record, it is scratched." > >"My hovercraft is full of eels...." "If I said you had a beutiful body, would you hold it against me?" From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:48 Message-ID: >the last fatal NW accident I am aware of was ~1984 in Detroit on a >MD-82 which at the time was a brand new plane (and was caused by pilot >error). August 16, 1987. The plane (officially a DC-9-82, though aka MD-82) was built in 1981 though it wasn't actually delivered (to Republic) until Decenber 1982. Not quite brand new, though close. -- 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 Tue Jul 16 13:51:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Konrad Kelley Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Details,Details Austin,Teaxs,USA Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:48 Message-ID: In article Pete Mellor, pm@csr.city.ac.uk writes: >That was always my understanding. However, I have heard that the >increasing use of composites in airframe construction has significantly >reduced the "Faraday cage" properties of modern airliners. Anyone know >anything about this? > The addition of a fine wire mesh in the composites provides the current path for lightning protection and greatly reduces the damage to the composite. So the Faraday cage is still there. A recent "Beyond 2000" or "Next Step" had a segment on this issue. All parts of any aircraft are required to be electrically bonded to each other to prevent lightning from arc-welding the movable parts together, like control surfaces hinges. This is accomplished by woven wire straps attached between the moving parts... a good thing to check on preflights while you are already looking. Konrad Kelley A&P mechanic and senior aerospace engineering student (UnivTx/Austin) From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Michaels (Paul Michaels) Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Scottish Internet Supplier Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:48 Message-ID: I believe that the next step is to reintroduce a Farraday cage by overlaying the composites with a fine copper mesh. Even if the systems and pax are protected, lightning strikes do a lot of damage to the composites themselves at the point of the strike. Paul Michaels, Aberdaugleddau (Milford Haven), Wales Paul Michaels From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:49 Message-ID: In article , barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) wrote: > In article , > C. Marin Faure wrote: > >The problem is drag, which as you know, goes up as the speed goes up. > > This is only partially correct. Below L/D max, drag increases as you > slow down due to the increase in induced drag. > > >When the cruise speed is pushed up, this extra parasite drag, plus the > >increased induced drag you're going to get anyway... > > This is incorrect. As you go faster, parasite drag increases, but since > you are lowering your required angle of attack, induced drag decreases. > > Total drag (parasite + induced) is more or less U-shaped when plotted on > a chart with airspeed on the X-axis, and Drag on the Y-Axis. The minima > is at your best Lift to Drag ratio, which is also your best glide speed. I guess there's a good reason why I'm not an engineer. I always thought induced drag was the product of producing lift, and not necessarily in direct relationaship to angle of attack. I've always thought you can increase lift two ways: by increasing the wing's angle of attack, or by moving the wing through the air faster. In either case, the induced drag would go up if it's a product of producing lift. But if induced drag is solely related to angle of attack, then I can see how increasing speed which allows you to develop the necessary lift at a lower AOA would not result in an increase in induced drag. In any event, the A-340 apparently picked up more drag than expected due to the outboard enigines and pylons, which requires a lower cruise speed on those flights where both very long range and a higher payload are required. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: heape@lor.cig.mot.com (Rob Heape) Subject: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:49 Message-ID: I believe I heard Monday was the first day for United's O'Hare to Hong non-stop Route. They are flying a 747-400, about 1700 miles, I think this makes it the longest commerical flight at 16 hours. I also heard reports they have to give Russia $2500.00 per flight and China the same amount for ATC usage. It's amazing they can do this. If the winds aren't right, they said they will have to touch down in San Francisco or Toyko. It also depends upon the load too of course. It was interesting to see what they used as the average weight per passenger. I think it was about 200 pounds including luggage. Seems too light... Anyone have more details on the flight? -Rob From kls Tue Jul 16 13:51:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 16 Jul 96 13:51:49 Message-ID: >I believe I heard Monday was the first day for United's O'Hare >to Hong non-stop Route. Monday was actually the first day for the HKG-ORD service; Tuesday marked the start of the ORD-HKG non-stop. Eastbound, flight 896 departs HKG at 940a on Monday, Thursday, and Saturday, arriving ORD at 1140a the same day. Westbound, flight 895 departs ORD at 345p on Tuesday and Saturday, arriving HKG at 840p the next day. A Thursday departure operates 50 minutes later, apparently due to slot constraints at HKG. >They are flying a 747-400, about 1700 miles Obviously a typo! The distance is 7,788 miles. United's first six 747-400s have a different, low-density seating configuration, with 36 F seats, 123 Connoisseur (aka business), and 142 Y, a total of only 301 seats. UA's other 747-400s have 418 seats (18F, 80C, 320Y). UA generally uses the low density aircraft where there is greater demand for the premium classes (such as JFK-NRT, though that usually uses the two low-density 747-222Bs). For ORD-HKG UA uses a low-density aircraft because of weight -- the extra pax, and perhaps the extra seats, would add more weight than they can carry on such a long flight. The flight is also passenger-only (no cargo). >It's amazing they can do this. If the winds aren't right, >they said they will have to touch down in San Francisco or >Toyko. Both would be *way* off course for this flight. Edmonton (or either Anchorage or Fairbanks) would be closer on the North American side, while Bejing would probably be the most plausible refueling spot in Asia. >Anyone have more details on the flight? Only one more bit of trivia -- with stiff headwinds, the flight may take longer than 999 minutes (16:39), which required modifications to some of UA's operations software! -- 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 Tue Jul 16 13:59:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety Path: bounce-back From: BGOODIN@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (William R. Goodin) Subject: UCLA short course on "Software Safety" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UCLA Extension Date: 16 Jul 96 13:59:47 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 http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/ From kls Tue Jul 16 13:59:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: glenn@ims.uni-stuttgart.de (Glenn Carroll) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: IMS, University of Stuttgart Date: 16 Jul 96 13:59:48 Message-ID: In article , "Rudi Vavra" writes: | |> The pilot slowed down to V2 BECAUSE he was trained to do so in that |> scenario. With the loss of one engine (remember, the crew did not |> know that they lost the whole engine including the pylon, the |> assumption was that the engine lost power), the SOP was to slow down |> to V2. This airspeed probably corresponds closely with the "best angle |> of climb" airspeed, and this procedure was implemented so that all |> ground obstacles are cleared safely before the crew "clean up" the |> airplane and decide on further action. Alright, I now know well enough why the captain decelerated to V2, but none of the answers have done much to enlighten me about the substance of the question. V2 is the speed one is supposed to fly with one engine out. In this case, with the outboard slats inappropriately retracted, V2 was not sufficient to prevent a stall. The aircraft could have been flown and landed at a higher speed, so: why is V2 so slow? Put another way: what are the factors that go into choosing V2 for a particular aircraft? I presume that higher speed implies more power from the remaining outboard engine which implies more of a yaw problem. Following this line of speculation, V2 would not be the same for the loss of the center engine in a tri-jet such as the DC-10, since there wouldn't be a yaw problem. Similar considerations would apply to the inboard/outboard engines on 747s and A340s. Is this true? One of the replies implied that it's decided by each airline individually--AA revised their manuals following the crash. That doesn't seem right; surely V2 isa property of the aircraft, and should not be left to each airline to determine. |> Aaah, yes, but again, you are analysing this with the benefit of |> hindsight. Spatial disorientation is a very powerful and deceiving |> sensation. The only way to combat it is to trust your instruments. |> When your instruments don't agree, it's very hard to decide which |> instruments to trust. I don't know what spatial disorientation you're talking about, as no one else has mentioned it on this thread. Care to clarify what you mean here? Of course the nut of the problem for Birgenair (pending the NTSB report ;-) is deciding which intstruments are right, and to what extent. My point was that in this case the decision criteria seemed straightforward: one instrument, the ASI, said "too fast", and another, the stick-shaker, said, "too slow". This impasse can be resolved through an instrument all pilots carry with them: "their ass strapped to the hardware", as someone else put it. At a given throttle setting and nose attitude, a B757 is not about to suddenly accelerate past its airframe speed limit. That eliminates "too fast" as a threat. "Too slow" can be taken care of by a moderate throttle setting/pitch, and then one can start worrying about which instrument(s) are wrong, and what one should do next. |> We are all human, and one of the human traits is to stick with your |> convictions. Once the crew make a decision and elect to trust one set |> of instruments, they will go with that decision even if all |> subsequent events try to tell them that their decision was wrong. It |> takes a clear analytical mind to evaluate these signs and break the |> chain. Pilots are human, sure enough, and they perform their task better than any known alternative. Nonetheless, they are also supposed to be selected for their ability to make the right decision in such cases, and then trained to do so. Fatigue is a factor one cannot weed out through selection or training. Panic and/or poor decision making skills, however, are just the sort of thing that can largely be eliminated. 8<============================================== Glenn Carroll glenn@ims.uni-stuttgart.de Institut fuer Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung Azenbergstr. 12 70174 Stuttgart (49)711-121-1387 office Germany (49)711-121-1366 fax From kls Tue Jul 16 13:59:48 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: 16 Jul 96 13:59:48 Message-ID: In article , Pete Mellor wrote: > Michael Bain wrote > on Wed Jul 10 20:58:25 1996:- > > > The cabin interior and entertainment systems are purchased by the > > airline separately. Entertainment systems can be installed after > > delivery, and often are. > > This statement surprises me. I am not familiar with the A340 entertainment > systems, but just about everything on the A3xx family is computer > controlled and integrated into the on-board network. On the B777, my > understanding is that the in-flight entertainment systems are totally > integrated into the computer network, and their design (not to mention > ensuring that a failure in the entertainment software could not propagate > to affect a more critical system) consumed quite a lot of Boeing's > effort. The entertainment and interior items in the 777 are specified by the airline, not by us (Boeing). We worked closely with several vendors to develop the entertainment systems, and there are a relatively few number of seat, lavatory, galley, and closet suppliers, so the airline's choices are limited, but what goes inside is pretty much up to them. Things that DON'T change are the overhead bins, the position of the seat tracks and primary bulkheads, and the cabin management system (lighting, heat, air conditioning, PA systems, etc.) But everything else is up to the airlines. Some airlines use Hi-8 for their video playback, some use laser disc, and so on. United has one type of seat and arranges them in coach in 2-5-2. British Airways uses another type of seat and arranges them in 3-3-3. Galley supplier and cabin placement can vary. The 777 incorporates flex zones in which galleys, lavs, closets, stow bins, and seats can be rearranged within 72 hours to expand or shrink coach, business, or first class cabin areas as market demands change. So while Boeing, Airbus, and McDonnell/Douglas build the planes, the experience you have on the airplane as a passenger (stable entertainment system, comfortable seat, easy-to-get-to lavs, etc.) is pretty much due entirely to what the airlines had us put into the plane, or what they put in themselves after the plane was delivered. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Tue Jul 16 13:59:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Date: 16 Jul 96 13:59:51 Message-ID: Robert Dorsett (rdd@netcom.com) wrote: : Also, keep in mind that tankers are more or less just regular airliners, : with an ability to refuel other airplanes. Unless special accomod- : ations are made, the onboard fuel capacity is the same as for their civilian : equivalent. I'm surprised. I would think a tanker would have additional tankage to accomodate a fuel weight equal to the passenger plus cargo weight of the equivalent airliner type. Otherwise I agree with all the explanations about why the airlines don't and shouldn't use aerial refuelling. An omitted reason for military aerial refuelling is that it doesn't require permission from a foreign power to land and refuel. -- Gerry From kls Tue Jul 16 13:59:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bill Hensley Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office Date: 16 Jul 96 13:59:51 Message-ID: >On 7 Jul 1996, Dkhodges wrote: > > A question to those who know much more than I about the airline industry: > Why is it that aerial re-fuelling, which has gained wide acceptance as a > military technology has not gained the same acceptance in the civiian > sector. It seems a reasonable way to fly longer routes with less > expensive aircraft, and perhaps a lucrative field for a "tanking" service > as well. > If you had ever sat through an AR, you would know another reason. The receiving aircraft generally has somewhat of an unsteady ride due to turbulence from the tanker. Even on a 747-200 (Air Force E-4B), there is so much up and down motion that even experienced fliers frequently get airsick. You can also get just so much gas down the pipe, so an AR for a large aircraft still takes upwards of 30 minutes of slow formation flying. Cheers, Bill email Bill_Hensley@smtp.rc.trw.com web http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Bill_Hensley/ From kls Tue Jul 16 13:59:52 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: 16 Jul 96 13:59:52 Message-ID: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) wrote: Don't have answers to many of your questions, interesting though they be. >The Hercules was well under way by 1955; there was no >serious attempt at making a turboprop Starliner.. >It seems that turbo-compound piston engines were >maintenence headaches - any ideas for the popularity >of piston engines? As I pointed out in one message somewhere, sometime, Lockheed tried to create the Starliner as a propjet, but was unsuccessful due to lack of proper engines/props. Motivation to continue project as piston type *might* have been due to input from TWA, which promised to buy aircraft if produced. The effort to create a propjet appears to have been rather serious, in fact--but that's judgement from a far distance. From kls Tue Jul 16 13:59:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 16 Jul 96 13:59:52 Message-ID: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) wrote: > >The Hercules was well under way by 1955; there was no >serious attempt at making a turboprop Starliner.. >It seems that turbo-compound piston engines were >maintenence headaches - any ideas for the popularity >of piston engines? I've wondered about that myself. The "popularity of piston engines" in the 50's and early 60's was certainly a purely *American* phenomon. The British developed the RR Dart, Bristol Proteus, and RR Tyne turboprops among others) and flew them on some successful airliners (eg. the Vickers Viscount, Bristol Britannia, and Vickers Vanguard respectively). Also, one extremely popular American short-haul liner (the Convair 240/340/etc.) was re-engined with British turboprops (the Napier Eland and the RR Dart) as well as with the only American turboprop I can think of which gained wide popularity (the Allison 501, as used on the Electra and Hercules). In the same time frame, the American companies were pushing piston engines to their very limits, and at the same time developing turbojets. With the exception of Allison, turboprops didn't seem to be a priority. Pratt & Whitney and Curtiss Wright both produced piston engines on the high side of 3000 HP (Pratt by going for large displacement in the R4360, CW by going with turbo-compounding in the R-3350). I remember reading once that Pratt was developing a turbo-compound R4360 for a B-36 follow-on, which would probably have passed 5000-6000 HP rather easily. Of course, it would have probably suffered the maintenance/reliability headaches that the R-3350TC had. >From an engineering standpoint, turbo-compound engines are truly amazing, and an interesting thing to study. They also were so complex and stressed that they beg the question "why bother?" in comparison to a turboprop. A friend once described a night takeoff on a DC-7C with R3350TC engines: during climb, the exhaust turbine plumbing glowed not a dull red, but a bright yellow, visible through the cowl flaps. During cruise (after a pause to shift the blowers) the plumbing "only" glowed red! If you look at photos of DC-7C's and turbo-compound powered Starliners, you'll notice that even on ships with shiny paint jobs, the area of the cowling from the cowl flaps aft is cooked black from the heat (and no doubt the typical radial engine oil leakage/burning). If I sound a little amazed that they flew at all, much less on schedule, its because I am. -- 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 Jul 16 13:59:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: pandy@tcp.co.uk (Andrew Cameron) Subject: Nationair DC-8 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Total Connectivity Providers - Internet access for the UK Date: 16 Jul 96 13:59:52 Message-ID: Can anyone help me identify a Nationair DC-8 I have a photograph of in 1990. It has fleet number 807, I believe (the 7 is partially covered). Can anyone relate this to a reg no. or c/n. This will probably be in an older copy of JP. Thanks. Andrew, Hampshire, England. From kls Tue Jul 16 13:59:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Nationair DC-8 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 16 Jul 96 13:59:52 Message-ID: >Can anyone help me identify a Nationair DC-8 I have a photograph of in >1990. It has fleet number 807, I believe (the 7 is partially covered). >Can anyone relate this to a reg no. or c/n. Nationair Canada, actually. Just plain Nationair is in New Guinea and only operates some little planes. Anyway, 807 was a DC-8-63, registration C-GQBF, msn 46116, ln 518. It was built in 1970 and delivered to Iberia in December of that year. Ten years later it went to Aviaco. In 1983, International Air Leases bought it and leased it to Arrow Air and then Quebecair before selling it to Nationair in 1986. It's been flying with Airborne Express since they bought it at the start of 1992, wearing registration N821AX. -- 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 Tue Jul 16 13:59:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 16 Jul 96 13:59:52 Message-ID: In craig@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch) writes: >> Clear air turbulence injuries are the fault of airlines, >>100%.(US airlines). CAT can be detected easily by >> radar. BUT the airlines have, in the US, lobbied >> strongly against being required to get such radar. >> This makes it their fault. IF they had the radar, >> they could give good enough warning time >Of course I can't mention the sender's name, but what he says is not >my impression. >Can others help clarify this? Are there advances in CAT >detection/avoidance? Radar detects things that reflect its signals: no reflectors, no echoes. By its very name, Clear Air Turbulence is undetectable by any radar. There are ongoing efforts to detect CAT using IR, etc., that can detect temperature changes. The military, with its megabucks, hasn't found a fix yet. A pertinent question for Qantas: what indicated they should turn on the seatbelt light? It was probably a Pirep from another airliner that had been there. If it were not CAT, but storm-related turbulence, then they must have detected it with the doppler function on their weather radar. That detection works out to 50 nmi. ahead of the a/c, and will point out turb, even in the lightest of moisture or ice pellets. Yes, there is doppler radar that does not fry everyone's cajones. This one puts out just 125 watts peak power, which is less than 1 watt average power. Compare that to your microwave oven.. RD From kls Tue Jul 16 13:59:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: Bill Hensley Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office Date: 16 Jul 96 13:59:52 Message-ID: Craig Welch wrote: > Are there advances in CAT detection/avoidance? Craig, as I recall from back issues of _Aviation Week_, RF-based radar simply does not have the resolution to reliably detect CAT. Air movement is detected by some radars (such as the WSR-88D in clear air mode) due to the radar seeing bugs and other stuff in the air being wafted about. Obviously, you don't have much debris in the air at 40KAGL. There has been some progress made in using laser radar (LIDAR) for CAT detection, though. Cheers, Bill Bill_Hensley@smtp.rc.trw.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Bill_Hensley/ From kls Tue Jul 16 13:59:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 16 Jul 96 13:59:53 Message-ID: >> Clear air turbulence injuries are the fault of airlines, >>100%.(US airlines). CAT can be detected easily by >> radar. BUT the airlines have, in the US, lobbied >> strongly against being required to get such radar. >> This makes it their fault. IF they had the radar, >> they could give good enough warning time While the airlines could sometimes do more to avoid CAT and resulting injuries, the single greatest safety improvement would be modification of passenger complacency... About 60% of non-fatal "accidents" (loss of life, or serious injury [defined as fracture of major bones or worse] in US FAR Part 121 operations (air carrier) are the result of turbulence encounters. In nearly 98% of these passengers who were injured were not wearing their seat belts...and for 80% of these, the seat belt signs were illuminated. There are only two reported US air carrier injury accidents to passengers who were wearing belts...and in one case the belt failed, the other was worn too loosely. Hard to blame the air carriers for the failure of passengers to comply with the FARs.... Cheers! From kls Wed Jul 17 04:05:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dave Martin Subject: Airbus speeds. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: dai@innet.lu Date: 17 Jul 96 04:05:33 Message-ID: I recently read a forwarded message on Bluecoat Forum concerning airline cruise speeds. Whilst those for Boeing appear to be on the button, those pertaining to Airbus are a little suspect. I last flew the A300-B2K in 1982-3 and typical cruise speed was 0,82 for hi-speed cruise and 0,80 for normal cruise. I believe that the airline I was flying for reduced this further to 0,78 as fuel became a consideration. I'm presently flying the 747-400 and we usually flight plan at 0,85 but this will likely be changed to 0,86 in the very near future as it seems to do better at the higher speed. The 747-200 and -300 were optimal at 0,845 and the -SP did better at 0,85+ as it was rather speed unstable at lower speed and our aircraft did not have a FFRATS. Regards, Dave Martin. From kls Wed Jul 17 04:05:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: brennan@interport.net (Martin Brennan) Subject: air cargo newsgroup - misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Interport Communications Corp. Date: 17 Jul 96 04:05:33 Message-ID: The air cargo industry is a major force in the growth of international trade. Besides the household names of Fed Ex,UPS,DHL,Emery Worldwide,etc. there are thousands of worldwide firms engaged in this vital industry. Topics in this newsgroup to be covered include among others air cargo agents,shipper issues,logistics,special cargoes,charters,heavy freight,mail,customs,courier,ground handling.For further information visit the web site http://www.concentric.net/~aircargo From kls Wed Jul 17 04:05:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 17 Jul 96 04:05:34 Message-ID: Konrad Kelley writes: > In article Pete Mellor, > pm@csr.city.ac.uk writes: > >That was always my understanding. However, I have heard that the > >increasing use of composites in airframe construction has significantly > >reduced the "Faraday cage" properties of modern airliners. Anyone know > >anything about this? > The addition of a fine wire mesh in the composites provides > the current path for lightning protection and greatly reduces the > damage to the composite. So the Faraday cage is still there. A recent > "Beyond 2000" or "Next Step" had a segment on this issue. I covered the FADECS on board the A310-300 cert flight test with PW4152s. During one flight, we had a direct strike to the right engine. (We were struck 4 times that I could hear, it made a very curious sound, not like I expected, more like snapping wood.) There was a slight discoloration on the composite fan case where it was hit, and some missing aluminum (~3/8") where (I presume) the stoke left via the fan nozzle. The FADEC, just behind the composite, didn't complain. (The harnessing, of course, is well shielded.) Charlie Falke System Test Team Leader Pratt & Whitney Aircraft 203-565-9063 desk 1261 fax m.s. 121-05 203-565-6462 x286a stand 400 Main St. 203-565-1261 Fax, PW office, East Hartford, Ct 06108 From kls Wed Jul 17 04:05:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 17 Jul 96 04:05:34 Message-ID: Steve Lacker wrote: > turbo-compounding in the R-3350). I remember reading once that Pratt was > developing a turbo-compound R4360 for a B-36 follow-on, which would probably > have passed 5000-6000 HP rather easily. Of course, it would have probably > suffered the maintenance/reliability headaches that the R-3350TC had. The R4360 had sufficient maintenance headaches as it was. > >From an engineering standpoint, turbo-compound engines are truly amazing, and > an interesting thing to study. They also were so complex and stressed that they > beg the question "why bother?" in comparison to a turboprop. A friend once > described a night takeoff on a DC-7C with R3350TC engines: during climb, the > exhaust turbine plumbing glowed not a dull red, but a bright yellow, visible > through the cowl flaps. During cruise (after a pause to shift the blowers) the > plumbing "only" glowed red! If you look at photos of DC-7C's and turbo-compound > powered Starliners, you'll notice that even on ships with shiny paint jobs, the > area of the cowling from the cowl flaps aft is cooked black from the heat (and > no doubt the typical radial engine oil leakage/burning). If I sound a little > amazed that they flew at all, much less on schedule, its because I am. The answer to "why bother?" is specific fuel consumption. The recovered energy in the exhaust put the fuel efficiency of turbo compounds in a class by themselves among aircraft engines. They were almost as good as diesels! As far as why there weren't more American large turboprops, the main answer is the same, the poor SFC of the early turboprops wasn't offset by their lighter weight, in comparison to recips, nor were they that much faster than the best recip powered airliners. Charlie Falke System Test Team Leader Pratt & Whitney Aircraft 203-565-9063 desk 1261 fax m.s. 121-05 203-565-6462 x286a stand 400 Main St. 203-565-1261 Fax, PW office, East Hartford, Ct 06108 From kls Wed Jul 17 04:05:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jeff Triebelhorn Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop..Going GOOD!!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Date: 17 Jul 96 04:05:34 Message-ID: Here is a little info on the maiden voyages of 896 and 895.. Flight 896 left HKG on the 15th at 0940, local time,( gear up @ 0954 from runway 13) weighing 847,400 lbs. Plane 8674 (N174UA) was used and it was carrying 369,900 lbs. of fuel!!! It touched down at ORD @ 1058 and blocked at the gate 1108 (local time) with a flight time of 14:06; it was 32 minutes early.. I don't recall the pax or cargo loads, but I do know that the majority of the cargo system was empty and there were open seats. Flight 895 left ORD on the 16th at 3:48 (local) and was to be towed to the end of runway 14R...I'm not certian if it actually was towed or taxied under it's own power..( gear up @ 4:14 with 381,900 lbs of fuel) Again, plane 8674 was used and this time it weighed 842,000 lbs. and had 384,500 lbs. of fuel..As I write this, it should be nearing touchdown so I don't have final #'s.. The flight time was estimated at 15:03 and as far as cargo goes, there was 226 bags and a little mail.. pax wise, not full. Until it lands, this is all that I can tell you...... happy flying, jt Jeff Triebelhorn __|__ triebelh@rastro.colorado.edu ---0--(*)--0--- http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~triebelh/Home.html ! ! ! DIA, B-32 and 36.... 777 Masters! :-) United Airlines Ramp Rat Naturally, all views are MINE! and Proud Owner From kls Wed Jul 17 04:05:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop..Going GOOD!!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 17 Jul 96 04:05:34 Message-ID: >Flight 896 left HKG ... weighing 847,400 lbs. ... >Flight 895 left ORD ... weighed 842,000 lbs. and had 384,500 lbs. of fuel Interesting that both were well short of MGTOW, which was 875,000 the last time I checked on a UA 747-400. A full load of fuel, though, or very close -- a rather dated reference I found claims a 747-400 has a fuel capacity of about 52,800 gallons. At a rough value of 7 lbs per gallon, that would be 369,600 lbs. Obviously either additional fuel tanks have been added or 7 lbs/gal is low (or both). >Flight 895 left ORD on the 16th at 3:48 (local) and was to be towed to >the end of runway 14R... 14R and not 32L? Not the most common winds for ORD. And towing it to the runway ... the only other times I've heard of that happening was the record-setting LHR-SYD flight and possibly similar "stunt" flights with the A340. -- 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 Jul 18 01:59:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 18 Jul 96 01:59:28 Message-ID: A TWA 747-100 exploded about 15 minutes after departing New York's JFK on a flight to Paris-CDG this evening, with wreckage falling into the water about 20 miles south of Mariches Inlet on Long Island, 40 miles east of JFK. Flight 800, scheduled to depart at 700p, took off just before 830p, and controllers in Boston reportedly lost contact with the flight at 840p when it was at an altitude of approximately 7,500 ft. Reports vary on how many people were about but the most reliable story seems to be 229, 212 passengers, 14 flight attendents, and three pilots. According to TWA, a flight to Rome was cancelled or delayed and passen- gers from that flight were protected on flight 800. It's not clear if this means there may have been more than 229 people aboard or not; it may account for the late departure. US Coast Guard boats and helicopters searching the area, hampered some- what by night and fog, had already recovered some bodies and body parts. There were reports of life rafts in the water but these apparently were dropped by the USCG and did not come from the TWA plane. A Coast Guard spokesman offered little hope of finding any survivors. The phone number for information on friends or relatives aboard the flight is 1-800/438-9892, or call TWA reservations at 1-800/221-2000. They don't have much info yet, though. The aircraft had been at JFK for three hours after arriving from Athens operating flight 881. It was reported as a 747-100, but I don't have any information yet as to which one it was. In particular, I don't know if it's the one that recently passed the 100,000 flight hour mark, apparently a record for any aircraft. According to last year's JP Airline Fleets, accurate through March 1995, TWA operated 10 747-100s (and three 747-200Bs). Eight were -131 models built for TWA in 1970 and 1971; the other two were -156 models built for Iberia originally and acquired by TWA in 1980 and 1981. All ten 747-100s were configured with two-class seating, 29 F and 396 Y, a total of 425. With 212 passengers, that's a 50% load factor, stunningly low in a summer when many trans-Atlantic flights are sold out in all classes well in advance. TWA's 1995 Annual Report shows only 11 747s at the close of 1995, (both retirements were 747-100s, I believe) with plans to increase that to 16 by the end of this year through purchases of used aircraft. One "new" 747-100 was added earlier this month, an ex-Continental (People Express before CO and originally Alitalia) 747-143, but it's unlikely it would have entered TWA service already. The $64,000 question ... what happened? Nobody knows yet, and with the debris underwater the investigation will not be easy. Obviously there is lots of speculation about a bomb (fueled no doubt by the fact that the aircraft had come in from Athens, which has a poor security rating) but at this point it's just that, speculation. One former NTSB official on this evening's news said it did NOT appear to be a bomb, in his opinion. I didn't catch the whole reasoning, unfortunately. All of this came just hours after TWA announced 2nd quarter earnings of $25.3 million or 46 cents per share, up 387% percent from $5.2 million in last year's 2nd quarter. (The result was still well below analysts' estimates of about 65 cents per share.) -- 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 Jul 18 01:59:28 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: stevem@mail.sydney.net (Steve McGinley) Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 18 Jul 96 01:59:28 Message-ID: An interesting piece of info on fuel burn, last week I flew BKK/SYD on QF 744. We pushed back 40 minutes late due to late arrival from LHR. The captain said that he would endeavour to make up some time, but that for every 15 minutes he makes up cost the company 2 tones of fuel. Steve Sydney, Australia From kls Thu Jul 18 01:59:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 18 Jul 96 01:59:29 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) responded to somebody: >>It's amazing they can do this. If the winds aren't right, >>they said they will have to touch down in San Francisco or >>Toyko. > >Both would be *way* off course for this flight. Edmonton (or either >Anchorage or Fairbanks) would be closer on the North American side, >while Bejing would probably be the most plausible refueling spot in >Asia. The first eastbound went well south of Tokyo and made North American landfall over the Olympic Peninsula (near Seattle). Fuel will probably not be an issue eastbound due to winds. Westbound went much farther north and into Russian airspace but not, I believe, into Chinese airspace. West of Tokyo - Seoul or Taipei are more likely fuel stops or Anchorage if known early enough. Apparently, one fuel saving technique being used is the plane is towed to the runway and engines started in the runup area. >>Anyone have more details on the flight? > >Only one more bit of trivia -- with stiff headwinds, the flight may >take longer than 999 minutes (16:39), which required modifications to >some of UA's operations software! I think this is a for block-to-block time, not just flight time. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Thu Jul 18 01:59:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 18 Jul 96 01:59:29 Message-ID: >The first eastbound went well south of Tokyo and made North American >landfall over the Olympic Peninsula (near Seattle). Fuel will probably not >be an issue eastbound due to winds. That makes sense -- I forgot to consider that favorable prevailing winds would suggest a more southerly route. >Apparently, one fuel saving technique being used is the plane is towed to >the runway and engines started in the runup area. How much does that add to the block time? I'd think that taxi time would be significantly longer with a tug than on engine power. (I assume the APU must be running the whole time.) -- 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 Jul 18 01:59:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: craig@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Pacific Internet, Singapore Date: 18 Jul 96 01:59:29 Message-ID: gerace@perth.DIALix.oz.au (Neil Gerace) wrote: >Part-owner of Qantas, the world's safest airline. Neil, Qantas is a fine airline. But how does it lay claim to "the world's safest airline"? Craig From kls Thu Jul 18 01:59:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: steven tobey Subject: Q: Black Stripe, TWA Aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flash-Net Internet Service Provider, 888-FLASHNET Date: 18 Jul 96 01:59:29 Message-ID: I've been noticing for the past year that TWA's fleet of aircraft have a black stripe painted chord wise, about midpoint of the wing. The stripe includes the leading edge slats and flaps. What's the purpose of this stripe? It's only on top of the wing, not the bottom. TIA. Steve From kls Thu Jul 18 01:59:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tragerk@sure.net (Kenneth Trager) Subject: Re: B757 Engine Compressor Stalls over US Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: SureNet Corp. Date: 18 Jul 96 01:59:29 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... > >>Does anyone have details on engine compressor stall forcing landing from >>Miaml to Denver on United 757 around 14 July? ... >>Will this disrupt the ETOPS rating of the bird as the engine tests were >>accelerated and extrapolated? > Guys, Just finished working in China (for a airline in china)for the last year and and we had a very big problem with stalls with the RB211 and the problem was fixed (after killing a few engine) after RR worked it out. Ken Trager tragerk@sure.net From kls Thu Jul 18 01:59:29 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B757 Engine Compressor Stalls over US Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 18 Jul 96 01:59:29 Message-ID: >>>Does anyone have details on engine compressor stall forcing landing from >>>Miaml to Denver on United 757 around 14 July? ... >>>Will this disrupt the ETOPS rating ...? >Just finished working in China ... we had a very big problem with >stalls with the RB211 and the problem was fixed ... Not that this would in any way affect United's 757 ETOPS rating, since UA uses Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engines on their 757s. -- 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 Jul 18 01:59:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtuttle@ciesin.org (D. Tuttle) Subject: Re: MD-90 experiences Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Michigan Date: 18 Jul 96 01:59:30 Message-ID: > Delta does seem to have some problems with MD 90 dispatch reliability. My brother-in-law is a propulsion engineer with Delta and confirmed the MD-90 dispatch problems. In fact, I guess Delta has done some pretty heavy complaining to MDD. I have not seen any articles about the MD-90's problems in AvWeek, so your post and his comments were a surprise to me. He indicated that the problems seem to be more than just "teething" problems. He also confirmed that the V2500 has some significant trouble with the scavenge oil system. dale From kls Thu Jul 18 01:59:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bill Hensley Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office Date: 18 Jul 96 01:59:30 Message-ID: Gerard Foley wrote: > I'm surprised. I would think a tanker would have additional tankage > to accomodate a fuel weight equal to the passenger plus cargo weight > of the equivalent airliner type. > Gerry, you are correct. Both U.S. primary refueling assets, KC-135s and KC-10s, use auxillary fuel tanks that are installed into what would be the lower lobe cargo areas. The deck is still available for cargo. A -135 can pass up to 120,000 lbs of gas, and a KC-10 up to 356,000 lbs. I think that A-6s used for the Navy refueling role have extra underwing tanks as well, but that comes from seeing a photo. I always thought a cool picture would be a KC-135 refueling an EC-135 which was refueling an E-4B or E-3... Cheers, Bill Bill_Hensley@smtp.rc.trw.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Bill_Hensley/ From kls Thu Jul 18 01:59:30 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: A brief commentary 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: 18 Jul 96 01:59:30 Message-ID: With regard to the Chicago DC10 accident Glenn Carroll wrote: > >V2 is the speed one is supposed to fly with one engine out. In >this case, with the outboard slats inappropriately retracted, V2 was >not sufficient to prevent a stall. The aircraft could have been >flown and landed at a higher speed, so: why is V2 so slow? Put >another way: what are the factors that go into choosing V2 for a >particular aircraft? To my mind there appears to be confusion between V2 and Vmca. V2 is a speed that is chosen that gives the greatest ability to achieve the legally required climb gradient and to clear obstacles in the departure flight path in the event of the critical engine failing. Rules vary but it is generally about 1.2 times the stall speed as a minimum. A speed higher than V2 will give an improved gradient but more distance will be used accelerating to the higher speed and the aircraft will be closer to the obstacle. At some airports with long runways it is permissible to use a higher V2 to allow higher take-off weights and still clear the obstacle. Vmca is the minimum control airspeed in the air with the critical engine failed.Vmcg applies on the ground. By definition, if the airspeed falls below Vmca the pilot will not have enough control authority (aileron and rudder) to control the aircraft. Vmca is determined in flight test with the critical engine shut down and 5 degrees of bank applied towards the operating engine. IMHO the Chicago DC10 did not stall but when the speed was reduced to V2 it came below Vmca for the aircraft with one engine failed and asymmetric leading edge flaps. This is an abnormal configuration and is not considered in the calculation of Vmca. The effects of the engine failure and the loss of leading edge devices on the same side were additive and the end result was the pilot did not have enough aileron and rudder capability to control the aircraft which then rolled into the subsequent dive and crashed. If the pilot had lowered the nose and maintained the airspeed above the Vmca for the existing configuration he had could have maintained control of the aircraft. Of course he had no idea what that speed was. Rgds, Tony Maddern From kls Thu Jul 18 10:55:16 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Allen M. Generoso" Subject: Re: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Date: 18 Jul 96 10:55:16 Message-ID: The 747 in question was a veteran 747-100, N93119 (f/n 17119). The aircraft was built and delivered to TWA in 1971. James R. Generoso JamesG@worldnet.att.net From kls Thu Jul 18 10:55:17 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 18 Jul 96 10:55:17 Message-ID: >The 747 in question was a veteran 747-100, N93119 (f/n 17119). >The aircraft was built and delivered to TWA in 1971. Thanks for the additional info! With that, here's a bit more. It's variously listed as a 747-125/131 or just a 747-131. As the -125 suggests, it was originally intended for Eastern Airlines. TWA took up at least four aircraft that were in production, but not complete, when Eastern cancelled their 747 order. This was the last of those four. It's first flight was August 18, 1971, and it was delivered to TWA on October 27. Boeing bought it back on December 15, 1975, with the intention of delivering it to the Imperial Iranian Air Force as their "registration" (it appears to be a military serial number) 5-288 but for some reason the deal was not completed and the next day, TWA bought the plane back from Boeing. (The other three TWA 747s from the Eastern order did go to Iran earlier in 1975 and apparently are still there.) The accident aircraft was msn 20083, the 153rd 747 built and the newest of the ten 747-100s in TWA's fleet as of March 1995. All ten were equipped with Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7A engines and had a MGTOW of 734,000 lbs -- heavier than the original 747-100 spec but not as high as some, which go up to at least 750,000 lbs. (The 747-400 has a MGTOW of at least 875,000 lbs. The current 747-600X proposal is 750,000 lbs with fuel or payload; MGTOW will be 1,126,000 lbs!) -- 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 Sat Jul 20 15:56:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: frank247d@aol.com (Frank247D) Subject: Oldest Boeing Airliner 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: 20 Jul 96 15:56:03 Message-ID: On 26 July 1933 the 48th model 247 off the Boeing production line was delivered to Pacific Air Transport. Records in the Boeing archives indicate it had beeen test flown by Les Tower (later killed in the model 299(prototype B-17) accident at Wright Field). The ferry pilot is not listed but the record shows it was ferried from the Boeing hanger to the Pacific Air Transport hanger in Seattle-these might both have been at Boeing Field or possibly from the small airstrip adjacent to Boeing Plant #1 to Boeing Field. My question is where was the first PAT revenue flight? Seattle? to?? Are there any United Air line folks out there that might be able to suggest where such a record may exist? Next Friday, 26 July,the aircraft will be 63 years youngand will fly from Piane Field, everett WA. to the Renton WA. airport where it was initially turned over to the Pacific NW Aviation Historical Foundation, forerunner to Seattle' Museum of Flight back in March 1966. It would be fun to duplicate that first revenue flight if we could learn where it went. the airplane did participate in UAL's 65th anniversary of operations in San Diego in June 1995 along with a newer twin engine Boeing, the 777. Frank Leathley (Frank247D@aol.com) 15000 Village Green Dr. #49 Mill Creek, WA, 98012-5751 From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jwilson@ott.hookup.net (Joe Wilson) Subject: Canadian Arlines Flight Forced Landing? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:04 Message-ID: Does anyone have information on a Canadian Airlines Flight Enroute from Vancouver to Ottawa that was forced to land becuase of a cracked Winshield and Engine problems due to a hailstorm? From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: Bard.Venas@varme.unit.no (Bard Venas) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Norwegian University of Science and Technology Reply-To: Bard.Venas@varme.unit.no (Bard Venas) Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:04 Message-ID: In , craig@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch) writes: >gerace@perth.DIALix.oz.au (Neil Gerace) wrote: >>Part-owner of Qantas, the world's safest airline. > >Neil, >Qantas is a fine airline. But how does it lay claim to "the world's >safest airline"? In the film "Rainman" some years ago, Dustin Hoffman's role character is afraid of flying and mentions several accidents the specific airline has been involved in. He gets the reply "every airline has crashed!", but immediately returns: "Quantas has never crashed!" Well, I don't know if this is true ... or is special at all ... Is it? Bard Venas Department of Mechanics, Thermo and Fluid Dynamics The Norwegian University of Science and Technology N-7034 Trondheim-NTNU, Norway From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: neilf@global.co.za (Neil Fraser) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Global Internet access Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:04 Message-ID: In article , craig@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch) wrote: >Can others help clarify this? Are there advances in CAT >detection/avoidance? I once flew through an area of sky that in daylight looked perfectly harmless. The Stormscope was showing a few crosses in said area of sky, and I thought this was just electronic mischief. When I got to where the dots were, there was unexpected turbulence. I have always wondered if the Stormscope had somehow detected a type of electrical field associated with turbulence, and whether this principle could be used to scan for CAT. Neil A Fraser TEL: 27 (11) 468 2892 FAX: 27 (11) 468 2895 ** There's more fun in getting there than being there ** From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dave Martin Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: INnet NV (post doesn't reflect views of INnet NV) Reply-To: dai@innet.lu Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:04 Message-ID: JVRusso wrote: > Regarding thrust generated by turbofan engines, I don't have exact > figures, but for high byass engines (PW4000, GE90, etc) the majority of > the thrust comes from the fan. The main purpose of the core (high > compressor/high turbine) is to generate enough horsepower to turn the fan. > The lower the bypass ratio, the more excess thrust is available after hp > is taken out to turn the fan. Figure as I recall is around 80% from the fan and 20% from the turbine. i.e. 40, 000 lbs vs 12,000 lbs for the older GE. The fan thrust drops off at higher altitudes whereas the core drops off but slower. You get a higher TAS for an airframe efficient CAS at altitude so it's still a bargain to climb (to the optimum altitude of course - typically mid to upper 30's for a fan aircraft). Regards, Dave. From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:05 Message-ID: Graham@irving.demon.co.uk writes: >In article , Robert & Linda >Wilson writes >>Comets were originally engined with RR Avons - zero bypass. The 707's >>bought by BOAC were engined with RR Conways. These, I think, were the >>first bypass engines in comercial service, however the bypass level was >>very low by today's standards. Less tha 0.5 if my memory serves me right. > >Just for the sake of completeness, Comets started life with DH Goblin >engines. Huh? At least by the time of the Comet 1 crashes, Comet 1s had de Havilland Ghost engines (although the airlines wanted the more powerful RR engines). I don't believe the preferred engies were Conways -- they didn't turn up until the 707 era. The RR engines proposed for for the Comet 1 were pure turbojets like the Ghosts; Conways are fans. I'm not sure about the Comet 4; they may have had Conways. -- 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 Jul 20 15:56:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:05 Message-ID: On 7 July, wohlers@hdz-ima.rwth-aachen.de (Wolfgang Wohlers) wrote: :I will try, though I am not sure about it: Today turbofans have bypass :ratios of about 7. If you say that the change in velocity is about the :same for bypass and core air (this is not exact of course) you get 7/8 :of the thrust through the bypass and 1/8 thruogh the core air. I am :not sure how much faster the core air is, but I think most the thrust :is provided by the bypass air. Actually, bypass ratio is a measure of airflow, not thrust. For example, on a turbofan with a BPR of 1.0, for every 1# of air that goes thru the core, 1# bypasses it. A BPR of 2.0 means 2# bypass for every 1# in the core, etc. (a BPR of 0 would mena a turbo jet, but that term isn't really used in discussion). The big turbofans run with BPRs of 8 or more, while the military jets generally range from 0.2 to 0.8, depending on the design. From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rparpatt@haven.uniserve.com (Thundercraft) Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: UNIServe Online Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:05 Message-ID: In article , wohlers@hdz-ima.rwth-aachen.de says... >> 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? >They were turbojet and didn't have any bypass air. The Rolls Royce conway did have by-pass air, although it was more like bleed-air rather than the fan blowing past the engine. The P&W's used later on had low by-pass fans From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: 777 fire? (fwd) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:05 Message-ID: (Before anyone jumps on me, let me say that I have seen the message pointing out that durian was *not* responsible for the B777 incident. I just thought you might be interested.) In Article , "Richard A. Muirden" wrote: >The fruit is Durian. I don't know how anyone can eat it as it really smells >awful. "Smells like hell, tastes like heaven." as they say in Malaysia. (I gave a short course there last year, followed by a holiday.) Durian is large (about the size of a football) and has a hard rough segmented skin (a bit like that on a pineapple, but greenish in colour). Its flesh is white and creamy (rather like a lychee) and is also segmented, with many seeds, each about the size of a hazelnut and surrounded by its own layer of flesh. It grows on impressively high trees, and when ripe it drops to the ground and pongs. The smell seems to be part of its breeding adaptation, since it attracts apes from miles away in the forest to eat it and scatter the seeds. On the island of Borneo, orang-utans are particularly fond of it. Unfortunately, one needs to be an orang-utan to stand the smell, which is indescribable, although it did remind me of the time the farmer next to our house spread several tons of ripe pig-muck on his field. > 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. Interesting! I was wondering how durian managed to get transported anywhere (having seen it on sale in London). In Malaysia, in every hotel there are signs warning guests that taking durian into the rooms is banned, and I believe it is actually illegal to take one onto a bus. 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 Jul 20 15:56:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Suren Ratwatte Subject: Re: 777 fire? (fwd) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Emirates Airlines Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:05 Message-ID: Emirates had a similar incident recently on our (brand new) 777. Evidently a cargo of mangoes set off the fire detection system and the aircraft diverted to Larnaca while on the London service. First there was the Jumbo-jet, now we have the Mango-jet! -- Suren Ratwatte surenone@emirates.net.ae An Airbus driver From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ghs@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE.larc.nasa.gov (Gautam H. Shah) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NASA, LaRC Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:06 Message-ID: Steve Lacker (slacker@arlut.utexas.edu) wrote: > This discussion seems the appropriate place to relate an incident that occurred > on a recent flight I was aboard. We were departing DFW in the usual line of 5-7 > A/C at the hammerhead, and I was observing the activities on the runway. All > aircraft in line at this time were 727-200's, MD-8x's, and one MD-90 (the plane > I was on). In all cases, the next plane in line would turn onto the centerline > shortly after the preceeding A/C had begun its roll, but would not release > brakes and accelerate until well after the preceeding A/C was airborne... with > one exception. MY flight! When the 727 ahead of us began its roll, I expected > our pilot to line up, and then wait about another minute. Instead, we turned > onto the centerline about the time the previous plane rotated, and IMMEDIATELY > began accelerating on our own roll. The last time I saw the preceeding 727, it > still had the main gear on the ground after rotating, so we were undoubtedly > rolling before the preceeding A/C was off the runway (I could hear our engines > spool up even before we were actually centered on the runway). I thought that > this was a bit too close, even though a 727 is not a "heavy" (although I don't > know if the "heavy" regulations apply to takeoff or not). In fact, it was > indeed one of the roughest take-off and climb-outs I've ever been on- > especially since the weather was clear and calm. > Any speculations as to why this would have been done? I can think of a couple of things that might have played a part-- 1. Your plane was lightly loaded, therefore could have rotated before the 727's rotation point, staying above its flight path during the climb- out. 2. There was an aircraft (or several) on final, necessitating an 'immediate' takeoff by your crew, or having to wait for several aircraft to land before you could leave. Of course, this is gross speculation, not knowing what the situations were. Sounds like a situation when having ATC communications on the headset would have been pretty interesting! Too bad you weren't on United ('course, you wouldn't have been on an MD-90 either, then!) Gautam Shah g.h.shah@larc.nasa.gov NASA Langley Research Center Personal opinions, not the Agency's (.sig sold separately) From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: amb@bronze.lcs.mit.edu (andrew m. boardman) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Quiche Eaters Anonymous Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:06 Message-ID: Doug Snow wrote: >Unless I was mistaken, the heavy moniker comes into play at gross weights >over 300,000 lbs. Well, the above, as well as everything I posted in my last message in this thread, is about to be wrong, and the U.S. is about to cast any semblance of agreement with the rest of the world to the winds. :-) This just hit my mailbox (edited for brevity): Flight Standards is announcing today a change to aircraft categories. "Small" aircraft will be those that are 41,000 pounds and under (used to be 12,500 pounds), with one exception: ATR 42 & SF 340, which will remain in the large category due to wing span and roll rate. The Heavy category is defined at 225,000 pounds and and over (used to be 300,000 pounds). As a result of this change, all DC8s and 707s and Tristars will now fit into the heavy category. [757s, too. -amb] According to a preliminary Mitre study, reduction in capacity will be approximately 20% nationwide. Now, the thing I'm really curious about: aircrew are required to have type-specific ratings for "large" aircraft, plus a few others (see FAR 61.5 and AC61.1). Will everything between 12,500 lbs. and 41,000 lbs. really now be legally flyable by any random ME pilot? It's an interesting if not scary speculation, although I'm actually more concerned about the fact that, when flying a light aircraft, the separation standards between me and all of the newly "small" aircraft just went *poof*... For a rather important change, I'm suprised I've only just heard about it on the net. I'm sure it will be talked to death in all of the usual media before long. andrew From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:06 Message-ID: >The Heavy category is defined at 225,000 pounds and and over (used to >be 300,000 pounds). As a result of this change, all DC8s and 707s and >Tristars will now fit into the heavy category. [757s, too. -amb] Unless TriStar refers to something other than a Lockheed L-1011, they were already solidly in the heavy category with a 430,000 lbs MGTOW for the initial L-1011-385-1 model. (Higher gross weights up to at least 510,000 lbs are available on other models.) -- 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 Sat Jul 20 15:56:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: AT3@reedycreek.stanford.edu (Arnold Tang) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Stanford University Graduate School of Business Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:06 Message-ID: >...we turned > onto the centerline about the time the previous plane rotated, and IMMEDIATELY > began accelerating on our own roll. The last time I saw the preceeding 727, it > still had the main gear on the ground after rotating, so we were undoubtedly > rolling before the preceeding A/C was off the runway I have experienced something like this at DFW, too. I've watched pushes at DFW, and have seen two narrowbody jetliners taking off seemingly too close. I have noticed that the first aircraft seems to rotate late, while the second aircraft rotates early, and I also recall the first plane goes straight out and then turns, while the second makes an immediate and very steep turnout. Is this some sort of takeoff protocol to decrease takeoff intervals? -A From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:06 Message-ID: >> At Heathrow tonight a Sabena 737 pilot got a right telling-off for >> declining to take off close behind a 757. He was told that in the UK >> 757s are not considered to be heavy and that 2 minute separation was not >> necessary. The pilot in the aircraft behind the next 757 further down >> the queue immediately requested two minute separation as well! > >According to the Manual of Air Traffic Services Pt1 the B757 is still >classified as a Medium in the UK. The only time it is treated >differently is for final approach vortex spacing when if a Medium is >following a Medium if the lead a/c is a B757 the spacing is increased >from 3 to 4 miles. > >-- Bureacrats are always right, you know, one shouldn't allow pilots to make safety judgements, where a qualified bureuacrat has already deemed the aircraft a medium... I would think, whether or not the aircraft is classified a medium or a heavy that the great difference in weight between a 757 and a 737 is enough for any pilot to think twice before taking off behind the heavier aircraft. Further, the pilot, being a professional, had probably heard of incidents in the US and decided to be cautious. Sounds good to me. (yes I know the reported incidents are for approach, not takeoff). It is true that the vortexes are worst during approach for a variety of reasons (high angle of incidence?? higher flap settings??) God knows, if he had had an incident or an accident from taking off too close behind the 757, the Sabena pilot would have been publicly castrated and then of course the bureaucrats would have sniffed "...well obviously the pilot was at fault..." Alan Browne The above (caustic) opinion is my own. From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: stage III noise limitations Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Loughborough University Reply-To: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:07 Message-ID: On 14 Jul 96 22:43:23 , Daan Vlaskamp wrote: >Could anyone give me more information on the coming "Stage III noise >limitations" by ICAO ? (These frequently pop up in environmental discussions >concerning our local airport). I would like to know which types would not be >allowed anymore (which have to be modified/hushkitted/rendered out of >service). I looked at the ICAO website but found no info. Does anyone know >of a document somewhere on the Net ? Stage 3 or Chapter 3 already exists and is a requirement for all aircraft built on or after 6 October 1977. The following types therefore meet these standards: Airbus A300-600 Airbus A310 Airbus A320 Airbus A330 Airbus A340 Boeing 737-300/400/500 Boeing 747-300/400 Boeing 757 Boeing 767 Boeing 777 McD MD-80 McD MD-11 McD MD-95 The above list is an example, it is not complete. The noise is measured at three reference points: Approach Reference Point: 2000m from the threshold along the extended runway-centre line. Assuming a 3° glide slope orignating from a point 300m past the threshold, this gives an aircraft height of 120m above the measuring point. Max level: 105EPNdB for MTOW >280,000kg decreasing linearly with logarithmic MTOW to 98EPNdB for MTOW of 35,000kg, below which it stays constant. Lateral Reference Point: The point on a line parallel to and 450m from the runway centre-line, where the noise level is a maximum during take-off. Max level: 103EPNdB for MTOW >400,00kg decreasing linearly with logarithmic MTOW to 94EPNdB for MTOW of 35,000kg, below which it stays constant. Flyover Reference Point: The point on the extended centre line of the runway and at a distance 6.5km from the start of roll. Max level: 2 Engines or less: 101EPNdB for MTOW >385,00kg decreasing linearly with logarithmic MTOW at a rate of 4EPNdB per halving of mass to 89EPNdB, after which it stays constant. 3 Engines: 104EPNdB for MTOW >385,00kg decreasing linearly with logarithmic MTOW at a rate of 4EPNdB per halving of mass to 89EPNdB, after which it stays constant. 4 Engines: 106EPNdB for MTOW >385,00kg decreasing linearly with logarithmic MTOW at a rate of 4EPNdB per halving of mass to 89EPNdB, after which it stays constant. ICAO plans to introduce a rule to ban all Stage 2 aircraft operated regardless of age in 2002. This is why many airlines, particularly US are either replacing DC-9/Boeing 707/727/737-200 type aircraft, or re-engining, or hush-kitting them, in preparation for 2002. Re-engining is expensive and on an old airframe or questionable value. Hush-kitting is cheaper, but reduces max thrust and often increases fuel consumption and emissions produced. Now, I have deliberately left off some new aircraft from the above list which come into a new category. ICAO iand the industry is currently discussing stricter noise limits than Stage 3. These will not be as severe as the change from Stage 1 to 2, and have therefore been nicknamed 'Stage 3.5'. The current estimate is that they will be Stage 3 minus 1-3 EPNdB at each or the three measuring points. Currently the MD-90, Boeing 737-600/700/800 and Boeing 777 will meet these proposed standards. Indeed all new aircraft on the drawing boards are considering Stage 3.5 in the design process. Apologies to the group for the long discussion! From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lrayrich@aol.com (Lrayrich) Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: lrayrich@aol.com (Lrayrich) Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:07 Message-ID: The one in Rio was due to a problem with an otbd engine's thrust control linkage. The engine (I think it was nbr 4) went into max reverse when the t/r's were deployed on landing. Aircraft departed the runway before the crew recognized the problem. The airplane eventually came to rest a couple hundred yars off the right side of the runway, pointed in some other direction. I don't know about injuries or fatalities, but the airplane broke up and I believe was scrapped. From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Arnold@reedycreek.stanford.edu (Arnold Tang) Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Stanford University Graduate School of Business Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:07 Message-ID: In article , turbulence1 wrote: > What i know about AF747 mishaps in GIG is that it has something to do with the > reverse. Curious--any 747 pilots out there--if an asymmetrical reverser condition on landing, what is the standard recovery procedure? Is it to mirror the asymmetry by throttling only two engines, or by asymettrical throttling? A pilot friend reminds me that asymmetrical thrust on takeoff and landing is absolutely deadly. I didn't know the lost AF747 was possibly a result of thrust asymmetry; it sounds a lot more serious than earlier descriptions on the net as a mere overrun. From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dep@ccr.jussieu.fr (Philippe DEPONDT) Subject: Re: Daussault Mercure (was Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CCR - Universites Paris VI/VII - Paris - France Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:07 Message-ID: In article , tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) writes: |> Karl Swartz wrote: |> >Back to the JT8D, it's also on first generation 737s (-100 and -200) |> >and the rare Dassault Mercure. |> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |> |> I notice extreme visual similarities between this aircraft and |> the more recent Airbus A319/320/321. Even odder, I was reading |> in a 1977 airliners book that Daussault was considering a |> stretched CFM-56 powered Mercure for early 1980's delivery. |> |> Does the A320 derive from this 737 lookalike? Unlikely. In the Airbus venture, I believe Dassault is only a sub-contractor to Aerospatiale. By the way, the Mercure was a flop since the only compagny ever to use it was Air Inter. The last Mercure was removed from service last year. Ph. Depondt From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Pstu@sierra.net Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Sierra-Net Reply-To: stu@sierra.net Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:07 Message-ID: In , stevem@mail.sydney.net (Steve McGinley) writes: >An interesting piece of info on fuel burn, last week I flew BKK/SYD on QF >744. We pushed back 40 minutes late due to late arrival from LHR. The >captain said that he would endeavour to make up some time, but that for >every 15 minutes he makes up cost the company 2 tones of fuel. If it was a relatively full flight, I think that works out to about $1 US per passenger for each 15 minutes recovered. I think its worth it. If I were in coach, I'd pay my share in cash just to get out early.> From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Innes Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc. Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:08 Message-ID: Once again there appears to be a great misunderstanding between the relationship of Indicated Mach and TAS. Everyone seems to hang thier hats on this thing called Mach No.'s. The real question is at what altitude are these quotes from. If your cruising at .83 at FL310 standard day, your TAS is anywhere form 490-495kts. If your cruising the Giant JetLiner at .85 at FL390 your TAS is probably the same or darn near it. The 4 engine SKUD (A340) typically cruise at .82-.84 inorder to stay with traffic flows over the ocean, both the NOPAC PACOTS and NAT system. For the A340 to cruise at these speeds it's fuel economy (range) decrease greatly! The aircraft must cruise at these higher speeds because it's optimum cruising atlitudes are typically the same as the faster transports, the 744 and the MD 11. We normally cruise the DC 10-30 long range at .82-.84, however it's optimum cruising altitudes are typically FL310-FL350 no higher. Therefore your effective TAS is really close to the aircraft flying higherand faster Mach's. From kls Sat Jul 20 15:56:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tilman@nscale.activesw.com (Tilman Sporkert) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Active Software, Inc. Date: 20 Jul 96 15:56:08 Message-ID: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: d is the plane is towed to >the runway and engines started in the runup area. How much does that add to the block time? I'd think that taxi time would be significantly longer with a tug than on engine power. (I assume the APU must be running the whole time.) Why would it take longer? Lufthansa has developed a "tug" that can move around a 747 pretty well, even without somebody in the cockpit. They were considering using these new tugs to move the aircraft to the runway, to save fuel. That was a couple of years ago, but I don't know if they ever implemented this plan. Unlike a convential tug, which uses a drawbar connected to the front wheels, this new tug has a wide slot in the back, going to the center of the tug. It backs up until the front wheels are in the middle of the tug, and then somehow grabs the front wheels and LIFTS them off the ground. With this arrangement, you have much better control of the airplane, and don't need anybody in the cockpit to operate the planes brakes. You can probably move a 747 at a pretty good clip this way. I have seen these tugs a couple of times at Frankfurt. Lufthanse seems to be using them to bring their planes from their maintenance areas to the gate area. Pushback was still done with convential tugs. -- -- Tilman Sporkert Active Software, Inc. tilman@activesw.com Anything stated above is just my opinion, not an offical statement of Active Softare, Inc. From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:07 Message-ID: > How much does that add to the block time? I'd think that taxi time > would be significantly longer with a tug than on engine power. >Why would it take longer? Obviously because I'd expect the top speed for the tug to be slower than the best taxi speeds. >Unlike a convential tug, which uses a drawbar connected to the front >wheels, this new tug has a wide slot in the back, going to the center >of the tug. It backs up until the front wheels are in the middle of the >tug, and then somehow grabs the front wheels and LIFTS them off the >ground. United has at least one at SFO as well. It does seem to move at a pretty good clip, but I'd still be surprised if taxiing wasn't at least potentially faster. I'd also wonder about a tug that lifts the nose with a fully loaded aircraft, as opposed to an empty aircraft. Weight might be all that much different, since most of the weight is on the mains, but the balance might be enough different to make the practice questionable. -- 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 Sat Jul 20 15:59:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jpstrain@netcom.com (Jim Strain) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-Line Communications Services Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:08 Message-ID: In article , lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) wrote: > Apparently, one fuel saving technique being used is the plane is towed to > the runway and engines started in the runup area. If I were a passenger, this is one "technique" that would make me *very* nervous. Sort of like being told, "for my safety and comfort" to please put on my life vest. There *are* worse things than having to make a gas stop. . . . jim strain in san diego. From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop..Going GOOD!!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:08 Message-ID: On 17 Jul 1996, Karl Swartz wrote: > >Flight 895 left ORD ... weighed 842,000 lbs. and had 384,500 lbs. of fuel I have it on fairly good authority that this *was* full fuel. Thus the reason for the tow to the runway. > ... a rather dated reference I found claims a 747-400 has a > fuel capacity of about 52,800 gallons. At a rough value of 7 lbs per > gallon, that would be 369,600 lbs. Obviously either additional fuel > tanks have been added or 7 lbs/gal is low (or both). The "nominal" density of Jet-A is 6.67 pounds per gallon, which in this case would yield 57,388 gallons. However, the Jet-A that I have been using all summer has been closer to 6.4 pounds per gallon. That would yield, in this case, 60,078 gallons. The fuel refiners are granted some latitude in delivered fuel density, and of course, the closer they can get it to whatever the minimum requirement is, the more money they make (the fuel is paid for by the gallon, but the number of btu's it actually produces per gallon is a direct function of its density). Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: alvinlaw@netcom.com (Alvin Law) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop..Going GOOD!!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line services Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:08 Message-ID: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >Flight 896 left HKG ... weighing 847,400 lbs. > ... > >Flight 895 left ORD ... weighed 842,000 lbs. and had 384,500 lbs. of fuel > > Interesting that both were well short of MGTOW, which was 875,000 the > last time I checked on a UA 747-400. A full load of fuel, though, or > very close -- a rather dated reference I found claims a 747-400 has a > fuel capacity of about 52,800 gallons. At a rough value of 7 lbs per > gallon, that would be 369,600 lbs. Obviously either additional fuel > tanks have been added or 7 lbs/gal is low (or both). When I flew UA 835/836 two weeks ago, I had a lengthy conversation with one of the flight attendants who seemed to be quite knowledgable. One of the topics of discussion was this new flight. He mentioned that the low density B747-400s will be used. Also, UA 895/896 will not carry any air-freight cargo. The real test, IMHO, will be this coming winter when the strong jet stream will push the flight time up above 17 hours. From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop..Going GOOD!!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:08 Message-ID: >The real test, IMHO, will be this coming winter when the strong jet stream >will push the flight time up above 17 hours. The flight is currently seasonal, with service scheduled to be suspended around October due to winter headwinds. -- 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 Sat Jul 20 15:59:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: tmjackso@netcom.com (Timothy M. Jackson) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop..Going GOOD!!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:09 Message-ID: I travel frequently from IAD to SIN...usually via ORD and NRT via UA...thought I could take advantage of the new ORD-HKG flight, until I found that it lands in HKG AFTER the UA HK-SIN flight (the last one of the evening) leaves!!! Why would United do this? They already have onward rights from HKG to SIN, at least from LAX and SFO...can anyone explain this? Thx, Tim Jackson tjackson@discovery.com or reply From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop..Going GOOD!!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:09 Message-ID: >... it lands in HKG AFTER the UA HK-SIN flight (the last one of >the evening) leaves!!! >Why would United do this? Possibly because they were slot-constrained at HKG, which is also why 835 runs 50 minutes later on the Thursday departure than the others. Assuming they have enough traffic to generate capacity loads through ORD just to HKG, they may not care much about the SIN connections anyway. The later departure allows UA to offer service to HKG from ORD (and eastern and midwest connections) with a nice spread of departure times -- from ORD: 930a (805 - stop and plane change at SFO) 1000a (603/1 - change at LAX) 1230p (881/801 - change at NRT) 345p (895 - non-stop; leaves 435p on Thursdays) 500p (928/2 - change at LHR, stop at DEL, and arrive after you've missed a good night's sleep in HKG!) With the early departures, you leave first thing in the morning and arrive HKG too late for much except a good night's sleep. The later departure time allows a full morning at the office on the east coast and even lunch in Chicago and nearby midwestern cities. United can no doubt command a premium for that advantage. A departure early enough to make a HKG-SIN connection would remove that advantage and perhaps added revenue, while adding nothing if the flight cannot accomodate a higher load. Why would you prefer a connection at HKG to your usual one at NRT? With similar flying times, the only advantage is probably the later departure -- which suggests you agree the later departure is good! >They already have onward rights from HKG to SIN, at least from LAX >and SFO...can anyone explain this? If you're suggesting they ought to add a HKG-SIN tag to 895, they again may have slot restrictions at HKG, or insufficient demand for greater HKG-SIN capacity, or perhaps curfew problems at SIN. They probably also need to have the plane overnight for maintenance -- I think UA's interval between overnight maintenance on 747-400s is less than the time it takes to fly two ORD-HKG round-trips, and there already isn't enough time to do the work at ORD. -- 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 Sat Jul 20 15:59:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sef@drmail.dr.lucent.com (JC54B0000-FarleighSE(DR9818)226) Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AT&T Reply-To: sef@bighorn.dr.lucent.com Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:09 Message-ID: >I think that A-6s used for the Navy refueling role have extra >underwing tanks as well, but that comes from seeing a photo. You are correct. The KA-6D carried extra fuel in drop tanks. As a matter of fact most carrier planes carry very little fuel inside and have to rely on drop tanks to get decent range. -- Scott E. Farleigh (formerly PR-2) Parachute Riggers don't get mad, just even. From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: aerial re-fuelling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:09 Message-ID: In article Bill Hensley writes: >Gerard Foley wrote: >> I'm surprised. I would think a tanker would have additional tankage >> to accomodate a fuel weight equal to the passenger plus cargo weight >> of the equivalent airliner type. > >Gerry, you are correct. Both U.S. primary refueling assets, KC-135s and KC-10s, >use auxillary fuel tanks that are installed into what would be the lower lobe >cargo areas. The deck is still available for cargo. A -135 can pass up to >120,000 lbs of gas, and a KC-10 up to 356,000 lbs. I stand corrected! Going to my sources reveals an underfloor capacity of about 97000 lbs on the KC-135A, with 81,000 lbs for the wing tanks. Refueling load is normally drawn from the underfloor tanks and the wing tanks normally used for the airplane, although supplies can be varied. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Rudi Vavra" Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Goodfox Pty. Ltd. Reply-to: flying@ozemail.com.au Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:10 Message-ID: Glenn Carroll wrote: > I don't know what spatial disorientation you're talking about, as no > one else has mentioned it on this thread. Care to clarify what you > mean here? It is the overwhelming sensation (in the absence of other, i.e. visual, clues) that you are not flying straight-and-level, even if your instruments indicate that you are. Your senses can be fooling you into thinking that you are flying upside down, or leaning to one side, etc. The problem is, you can actually fool yourself into believing that your instruments (attitude indicator) are faulty, and believing your senses. A lot of pilots flew their airplanes into the ground not believing their instruments. There is the story of the flight of F-16s, flying in formation between two solid layers of cloud (an overcast and an undercast), with no visual reference to the horizon. Up ahead they saw a guy in a Beech Bonanza flying serenely along, minding his own business. As the leader was getting a bit bored, he rolled upside down, and the formation followed. They overtook the Bonanza, flying upside down, as if nothing was amiss. Sure enough, looking back, they saw the Bonanza roll over slowly on its back :-) (I hope they told him they were just fooling around) That's what spatial disorientation is all about. It is a very powerful sensation, and even very experienced pilots experience it on occasions. > Of course the nut of the problem for Birgenair (pending the NTSB > report ;-) is deciding which intstruments are right, and to what > extent. My point was that in this case the decision criteria seemed > straightforward: one instrument, the ASI, said "too fast", and > another, the stick-shaker, said, "too slow". This impasse can be > resolved through an instrument all pilots carry with them: "their > ass strapped to the hardware", as someone else put it. At a given > throttle setting and nose attitude, a B757 is not about to suddenly > accelerate past its airframe speed limit. That eliminates "too > fast" as a threat. "Too slow" can be taken care of by a moderate > throttle setting/pitch, and then one can start worrying about which > instrument(s) are wrong, and what one should do next. Aaah, but how do you know that your attitude indicator is not faulty? What if the various attitude indicators on board also didn't agree? See the problem? They have to identify which instruments they can trust. Rudi -- Rudi Vavra http://www.ozemail.com.au/~flying (Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines) -- <> From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:10 Message-ID: On 16 Jul 1996, Glenn Carroll wrote: > Alright, I now know well enough why the captain decelerated to V2, but none > of the answers have done much to enlighten me about the substance of the > question. V2 is the speed one is supposed to fly with one engine out. V2 is "Takeoff Safety Speed." That is "the actual speed attained at 35 feet above the runway surface with engine failure at V1 [Critical Engine Failure Speed, i.e., Decision Speed] and the airplane rotated at VR. V2 will always be *at least* 1.2 VS [Stall Speed] ... and varies with weight." (emphasis added) "VR [rotation speed] is the speed (IAS) at which airplane rotation is initiated assuming a continued takeoff after engine failure at V1 speed. When rotated to 13 degrees - 15 degrees nose up body attitude at VR [in the case of the FAR Part 25 airplane from whose flight manual this was quoted], the airplane will attain V2 airspeed before a height of 35 feet is attained [the First Segment 'screen height']. This varies with weight, altitude, temperature and [whether the aircraft's air condition packs are ON or OFF]." > One of the replies implied that it's decided by each airline > individually--AA revised their manuals following the crash. That > doesn't seem right; surely V2 isa property of the aircraft, and should > not be left to each airline to determine. Probably not so, per the above definition. Where airline-to-airline procedures *can* vary is, in the event of an engine failure, whether or not an attained speed above V2 should be reduced back to V2. In my own training by several airlines, the consensus seems to have been to just "hold what you've got," rather than reduce. This itself *may* be a result of the Chicago DC-10 accident, but I have no way of knowing. [Regarding the BirgenAir 757 crash ...] > I don't know what spatial disorientation you're talking about, as no one > else has mentioned it on this thread. This accident happened at night, probably with no visible horizon. The aircraft *may* have departed controlled flight early in the stall (does anyone know if the FDR data confirm or deny this?). Whatever the case, there is little question in my own mind that the pilots were, in fact, "spatially disoriented." > Of course the nut of the problem for Birgenair (pending the NTSB report ;-) > is deciding which intstruments are right, and to what extent. Again not trying to second-guess an unfinished report, but it *appears* that the crew may have been aware of an airspeed discrepancy early in the takeoff roll. *If* so, they could have - and IMO *should* have - made an uneventful abort at a speed *well* below V1. I would be enormously surprised if their Minimum Equipment List permitted a takeoff with such a problem in the airspeed indicating system (but someone please correct me if this is not the case). Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:10 Message-ID: In article , Tony Maddern wrote: > With regard to the Chicago DC10 accident Glenn Carroll wrote: > > > >V2 is the speed one is supposed to fly with one engine out. In > >this case, with the outboard slats inappropriately retracted, V2 was > >not sufficient to prevent a stall. The aircraft could have been > >flown and landed at a higher speed, so: why is V2 so slow? > > the Chicago DC10 did not stall but when the speed was reduced to > V2 it came below Vmca for the aircraft with one engine failed and > asymmetric leading edge flaps. -- V2 is the speed at which an optimally flown airplane reaches a 35 ft. height when an engine has failed during the takeoff run. The optimally flown airplane is one that was lifted off at a speed at least 10% above the Vmu speed, or 10% above the Vmc(minimum control speed with the critical engine inoperative). The Vmu is the lowest speed at which the airplane can be lifted off without exhibiting dangerous characteristics. Being the slowest permissible speed, it generally gives the optimum flight path near the ground, i.e. has the best obstacle clearance. It does not necessarily correspond to the best angle of climb but if one accelerates to a higher speed, the climb angle is lowered during the acceleration. There is another good rule. If something is wrong with the airplane, and one is flying near the lower end of the speed range, and IF ALL GROUND OBSTACLES ARE CLEARED, there is no point in slowing down. The faster the speed margin the better, so never give up speed! I do not believe there was any indication that there was a Vmc problem in the DC-10 Chicago accident. The airplane was well above Vmc. Furthermore at V2, selected with slata extended, the DC-10 is above the stall speed even with slats retracted although the speed margin is much reduced. The stall was due to the fact that when the rear support failed due to the crack produced in replacing the pylon erroneously, the engine rotated about the front support before pulling it through the leading edge and breaking up thwe airfoil shape. That is what caused the stall at V2. Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ejrupke@vgernet.net Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Wizvax Communications, Troy, N.Y. 12180 USA Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:10 Message-ID: Hi Alan The Beech Starship is fabricated of carbon fiber which is conductive and from an e-field standpoint does act like a faraday cage. There is also quite a bit of metal foil inside which is primarily for lightning protection and to help provide an equipotential plane inside for electronics. I don't remember for sure, but I think the VLF? or Omega, antenna had to be changed from a magnetic field sense to e-field sense or vice-versa... this is a little out of my area but this seem to stick in my mind as a small technical problem during certification. Help me out here if this makes any sense..... ED Rupke From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: S.Catt@lancaster.ac.uk (Stephen Catt) Subject: Re: The ATR72 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Lancaster University Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:10 Message-ID: S.Catt@lancaster.ac.uk (Stephen Catt) wrote: >Last Friday we flew from Poznan to Warsaw on an ATR72 (twin >engine turboprop) belonging to LOT, the Polish national airline. My >question is - who makes this plane? It's not one I've come across before. Many thanks to everyone who replied to this posting, via the newsgroup and via email. Steve ***** Steve Catt, Professional Development Unit, SECaMS, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YR, UK Phone: 01524 594297 (Work) or 01772 39048 (Home) From kls Sat Jul 20 15:59:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Airbus lawsuit coming? (and other thoughts) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 20 Jul 96 15:59:11 Message-ID: As Air-India is about to make its decision on the purchasing of a medium-capacity, long-range aircraft, a recurring piece of news came out on a newswire report from New Delhi, India. According to the report, Airbus has started legal proceedings against Boeing for allegedly making misleading statements about the under-performance of the A330/340. According to Airbus, some of the false claims that Boeing have allegedly made include: 1. The speed of A340 was Mach 0.80 instead of 0.82. 2. Boeing enjoyed a 70% global market share in this segment. 3. The 777 has 30 more seats than the A330/340. My comments on the three claims: 1. The speed issue has recently been discussed in this group. Whether it is 0.80 or 0.82, the A340 is slower. Boeing's claim is that with the B777, airlines will have the flexibility to interchange the B747 and the B777 as the market demands without changing the schedule. OTOH, Boeing may have overplayed the significance of 30-to-45-minute "delay" on a very long flight. 2. On the market share, Airbus is just as guilty as Boeing. Airbus conveniently discarded the B777-300 sales in their comparison, because of the B777-300's much larger size. However, Airbus failed to point out the B777 does not compete with the A340-200 and the A330-200 since both are much smaller aircraft than the the B777-200. This year, the A330/340 is doing quite well. If you pay attention to recent Boeing ads, Boeing still used the 1990-95 figures which strongly favor Boeing, but Boeing did clearly say to the end of 1995. 3. About the capacity, I know the B777 is bigger, but I don't know how accurate the 30-seat figure is. I also know that in a high-density configuration, both aircraft are allowed to put 440 seats which is the maximum capacity limited by the number of exits. Boeing and Airbus fairly evenly split the "first-generation", widebody-twin (A300/A310/B767) market. Airbus has a slight edge in total orders (I think), but the Boeing still receives significant B767 orders while Airbus receives very few A300/310 orders. Boeing also has a much healthier B767 backlog than the A300/310. Furthermore, with the launch of the A330-200, the A300 program won't last for too much longer. One interesting fact is that very few airlines operate both the A300/310 and the B767. The few which have both aircraft by choice are: Air France, American, EgyptAir, Kuwait, and ARIA (Aeroflot); and there are a couple that have/had both due to merging: Qantas, Delta. Well, the list may not be complete, but the point is there are very few, and only Air France and American have sizable fleet of both twins. OTOH, there are already nine airlines that have ordered both the A330/340 and the B777 (which has 20 airline customers), namely, Cathay Pacific (330/340), Thai International (330), All Nippon (340), Malaysia (330), Korean Air (330), Singapore (340), Garuda (330), EgyptAir (340), and Kuwait (340). It is also understood that Korea's Asiana will soon order both the A330 and the B777. Air China and Virgin Atlantic are likely to order the B777 while both already have the A340 on order or in service. IMHO, politics may have played a bigger role than the product. I was told by a Korean friend that Asiana was "instructed" by the Korean government not to upset either side. That may also explain why Korean Air has one the most "diverse" fleet in the world. One last comment concerning the A3XX. I used to think it was unwise for Airbus to spend US$8-12 billion on the A3XX to compete with the B747X. Now, I'm not sure about it. The Airbus design is capable of being stretched to carry some 600-700 passengers. I doubt the Boeing can do anything further than the 550-passenger B747-600. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:33 Message-ID: H Andrew Chuang wrote: >One last comment concerning the A3XX. I used to think it was unwise for >Airbus to spend US$8-12 billion on the A3XX to compete with the B747X. Now, >I'm not sure about it. The Airbus design is capable of being stretched to >carry some 600-700 passengers. I doubt the Boeing can do anything further >than the 550-passenger B747-600. Why is this? I thought Boeing was designing a new wing for the B747-500 and -600, since the existing B747 wing is pretty much at its limits on the -400. I would have thought that the aircraft could be stretched further if the wing was up to the job. Experience says that if there's one thing Boeing knows best about building jet transports it's getting the wing right. -- 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 Jul 21 13:29:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joe Curry Subject: Re: Airbus lawsuit coming? (and other thoughts) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:33 Message-ID: In message Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) writes: > One last comment concerning the A3XX. I used to think it was unwise for > Airbus to spend US$8-12 billion on the A3XX to compete with the B747X. Now, > I'm not sure about it. The Airbus design is capable of being stretched to > carry some 600-700 passengers. I doubt the Boeing can do anything further > than the 550-passenger B747-600. There are problems operating aircraft of these proportions. You need the passengers to fill them. Past experience has shown that larger aircraft mean less frequent flights and loss of jobs in flight and cabin. A five times a week flight has to be reduced to two a week. Passengers might be forced to fly from a distant airport. Convenience to pax is paramount. Aircraft fly because people want this convenience. Corporate decisions often fail because they have not taken pax convenience into account. -- ability@zetnet.co.uk _|_ Joe Curry --o--O--o-- >From the shadow of North Berwick Law in East Lothian,"Bonnie Scotland" Edinburgh Airport is the UK's fastest growing.Insist on flights to EDI. Museum of Flight.http://www.nms.ac.uk.Inventory includes the Comet 4c. From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:34 Message-ID: In Konrad Kelley writes: > All parts of any aircraft are required to be electrically >bonded to each other to prevent lightning from arc-welding the movable >parts together, like control surfaces hinges. This is accomplished by >woven wire straps attached between the moving parts... a good thing to >check on preflights while you are already looking. Bonding straps are used on many, if not all Boeings. They are not delivered from Douglas on DC-9 or MD-80 aircraft. If they don't have to be there, they can't fail. Bonding straps are good for precip static conduction, but lightning strikes are thousands or millions of volts initially, and then hundreds or thousands of amps after attachment. Due to the very high voltage, lightning will take the shortest path, not the path of least electrical resistance. Bonding straps, therefore, are of little use for conducting lightning. RD From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:34 Message-ID: In Tony Maddern writes: >IMHO the Chicago DC10 did not stall but when the speed was reduced to >V2 it came below Vmca for the aircraft with one engine failed and >asymmetric leading edge flaps. This is an abnormal configuration and >is not considered in the calculation of Vmca. The effects of the >engine failure and the loss of leading edge devices on the same side >were additive and the end result was the pilot did not have enough >aileron and rudder capability to control the aircraft which then >rolled into the subsequent dive and crashed. > >If the pilot had lowered the nose and maintained the airspeed above >the Vmca for the existing configuration he had could have maintained >control of the aircraft. Of course he had no idea what that speed was. At the time, a DAC engineer told me that the copilot was flying the takeoff, and after the engine departure had the plane climbing and accelerating above vmca. The FDR showed compensating rudder, then neutral rudder, and then hard right rudder. Per AA SOP, the captain had taken over and brought the nose up to achieve "two engine centering speed". That act, with a retracting slat, apparently caused the ensuing stall. Maybe airline Captains should be aircraft commanders, and not helmsmen as well. RD From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: brumstik@interaccess.com (broomstick) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterAccess,Chicagoland's Full Service Internet Provider Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:34 Message-ID: [snip] >He gets the reply "every airline has crashed!", but immediately >returns: "Quantas has never crashed!" >Well, I don't know if this is true ... or is special at all ... >Is it? Southwest Airlines has never crashed either, after several decades of operation. It's the only American airline with no crashes. -- >---Broomstick--- | YEE-HA! From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:34 Message-ID: >Southwest Airlines has never crashed either, after several decades of >operation. It's the only American airline with no crashes. Nonsense. Western Pacific has never had a crash, nor has the current Frontier, nor Vanguard, TriStar, AirTran (are they still around?), and probably quite a few others. Of course, they have a much shorter track record than Southwest, but there are plenty of other American airlines with no crashes. -- 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 Sun Jul 21 13:29:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:34 Message-ID: A popular theory for the crash of TWA flight 800 seems to be that it was shot down using a missile (a Stinger?) from a hand-held launcher, either launched from short (allegedly out of range) or from a boat. Reports of a streak in the sky and a radar blip merging with TW 800 are used to support this notion, though the military says the blip was a momentary electronic phantom and that the 747 was both too high and too far off shore to be within range of such a missile. Let's assume it was *possible*, that is, range and altitude aren't an issue. I still have one problem with the missile theory. Korean Airliners 007 was shot down by two missiles launched from a Soviet Sukhoi-15 fighter, 6-12 km (the reports I have are unclear) behind it. I assume that a fighter could carry missiles with significantly more punch than any sort of hand-held missile. Yet there was no fireball, no in- flight breakup of KE 007. One missile hit near the tail while the second ripped off a substantial portion of the left wing. Far from an explosion and fireball, followed by breakup of the airframe, the plane had electric power for another minute and 44 seconds, allowing the CVR to record a hopeless struggle as the pilots tried to regain control of the crippled 747. The evidence indicates the airframe was intact for the entire twelve minutes from missile hit to impact with the water. Perhaps the Soviet air-to-air missiles are so poor that they can't match the punch of a hand-held Stinger, or maybe you just need a really lucky shot to trigger an instant fireball. I'm skeptical, though I'm willing to consider a solid argument that even a small missile could indeed have produced the observed result. -- 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 Sun Jul 21 13:29:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: McElravy Subject: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:34 Message-ID: This may sound like a really dumb question, but I like to be on top of things. In the computer world, technical words have specific pronunciations. No where is it written that 80486 is pronounced "eighty-four-eighty-six." In the aviation world I wonder how you say the names of the planes in the Boeing fleet? Gate attendants and pilots on my flights seem to always use "seven-thirty-seven", or whatever circumstances allow. In watching the CNN rubbish about TWA 800 the newspeople pronounce the planes like this too. For that matter, most people I talk to say it that way. However, anytime I ever hear Boeing people talk, it is always "seven-four-seven." or the like. The exception is the 777 which is the "triple-seven" to everyone. Is there any "official" way to pronounce these planes? I always pronounce them "seven-oh-seven, seven-thirty-seven, seven-forty-seven, etc., etc." The only plane I use the Boeing method for is the 777, which is the "triple-seven", or "seven-seven-seven" to me, because "seven-seventy-seven" sounds dorky. Should I mend my ways? Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:35 Message-ID: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) wrote: > >The answer to "why bother?" is specific fuel consumption. The >recovered energy in the exhaust put the fuel efficiency of turbo >compounds in a class by themselves among aircraft engines. They were >almost as good as diesels! > > As far as why there weren't more American large turboprops, the >main answer is the same, the poor SFC of the early turboprops wasn't >offset by their lighter weight, in comparison to recips, nor were they >that much faster than the best recip powered airliners. I agree that SFC of turbo-compounds was astounding... but was that really the motivation?? After all, the TC's had to burn >>100 octane aviation gasoline, while a turboprop could burn bargain-basement kerosene. On top of that, this was the '50s and '60s, when fuel costs were less of a factor (although still admittedly a large factor) in expense management. Add in the cost of maintaining a turbo compound, and then it seems to me that even a pig of an inefficient turboprop looks pretty good. Now, to hop to your side of the argument... I suppose its true that the airlines would opt for the low SFC of the TC engines initially, then back down *later* when maintenance problems actually begin to hit home. By then, jets were taking over, and the turboprop finally made inroads in the US (principally on the Electra). And since you mentioned it... why aren't we overrun with diesel engined aircraft? Poor power-to-weight ratio? -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:35 Message-ID: >>The answer to "why bother?" is specific fuel consumption. >I agree that SFC of turbo-compounds was astounding... but was that really the >motivation?? After all, the TC's had to burn >>100 octane aviation gasoline, >while a turboprop could burn bargain-basement kerosene. On top of that, this >was the '50s and '60s, when fuel costs were less of a factor (although still >admittedly a large factor) in expense management. Fuel cost isn't the only issue -- lower SFC with the same fuel capacity means greater range. One of the goals of the DC-7 was to be able to fly from New York to California non-stop, reliably, even against strong winter headwinds. Never mind the expense of the fuel burned, they needed the lower SFC to get the range yet still carry a decent payload. -- 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 Sun Jul 21 13:29:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:35 Message-ID: McElravy wrote: > Fokker 100 -- Scientists/Inventors (I think, I wasn't too good at those > ones, I hesitated even mentioning this one for fear of looking > daft -- Leeuwenhoek, Oort) Astronomers? The "Oort cloud" is the mass of comets surrounding the Sun, I believe. I've heard of Leeuwenhoek, but don't remember what he did. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: McElravy Subject: Re: aircraft engine names Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:35 Message-ID: >McElravy wrote: >> Fokker 100 -- Scientists/Inventors (I think, I wasn't too good at those >> ones, I hesitated even mentioning this one for fear of looking >> daft -- Leeuwenhoek, Oort) > >Astronomers? The "Oort cloud" is the mass of comets surrounding the Sun, I >believe. I've heard of Leeuwenhoek, but don't remember what he did. The Oort cloud! That's right! I was racking my brain trying to remember what that name meant to me! Anyway, Leeuwenhoek was the Dutchman who invented the microscope. Why I remembered what he did and not Oort is unknown. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Baetke Subject: Boeing Model 307 Stratoliner Info Request Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc. Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:35 Message-ID: My Dad has volunteered to help with the restoration of a Boeing Model 307 Stratoliner (1 of only 10 built) with the goal of evenutally making the aircraft certifiable for flight. He is working on the restoration of the interior of the fuselage from the cockpit aft. Does anyone have any information about interior design, specs, pictures, stuff that may have come out of a Stratoliner, etc... that will help him determine what should go back in? He is currently searching the Boeing microfilm libraries but the information is in really poor shape and much of it is unreadable. Any help or pointers would be greatly appreciated. From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andy Tompson Subject: Re: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:36 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > >........ > One former NTSB official > on this evening's news said it did NOT appear to be a bomb, in his > opinion. I didn't catch the whole reasoning, unfortunately. My understanding on this was that there were reports of a sequence of happenings....some kind of initial fire (that looked like a flare), a larger explosion slightly later, and possible a third after that. Plus, there were some indications that the initial fire was not "centered" on the fuselage, but off to the side (as possibly interpreted from some perceived rotating motion). Neverthless, I heard the NTSB guy on CNN say that the fact there was a sequence of explosions and the fact that the original "fire" may have been off center could indicate and origin away from the fueselage [where a bomb in the baggage would be stored]. Of course, I keep thinking about someone stuffing something in the landing gear area while on the ground, but do we need more speculation? -- Andrew F. B. Tompson: Earth Sciences Division Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, L-206 voice: (510) 422-6348 fax: (510) 422-3118 email: afbt@llnl.gov or andy@s50.es.llnl.gov From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pdm@access.digex.net (Paul Makinen) Subject: Air Transport Association "Subject Headers" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:36 Message-ID: I have a document that refers to "ATA Headers": For example, ATA 21 refers to Air Conditioning Systems, ATA 23 is Radio Equipment, ATA 32 is Landing Gear, ATA 25 is Passenger Cabin, etc... Does anyone know what document these are from? All assistance appreciated... Thanks, Paul From kls Sun Jul 21 13:29:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Arnold@reedycreek.stanford.edu (Arnold Tang) Subject: Re: MD-90 experiences Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Stanford University Graduate School of Business Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Jul 96 13:29:36 Message-ID: In article , dtuttle@ciesin.org (D. Tuttle) wrote: >..confirmed the MD-90 dispatch problems. Hmm, does the A320 have the same problem with the V2500-series engine? From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:07 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >A popular theory for the crash of TWA flight 800 seems to be that it >was shot down using a missile (a Stinger?) from a hand-held launcher, >either launched from short (allegedly out of range) or from a boat. >Reports of a streak in the sky and a radar blip merging with TW 800 >are used to support this notion, though the military says the blip was >a momentary electronic phantom and that the 747 was both too high and >too far off shore to be within range of such a missile. Let's assume >it was *possible*, that is, range and altitude aren't an issue. > >I still have one problem with the missile theory. Korean Airliners >007 was shot down by two missiles launched from a Soviet Sukhoi-15 >fighter, 6-12 km (the reports I have are unclear) behind it. I assume >that a fighter could carry missiles with significantly more punch than >any sort of hand-held missile. Yet there was no fireball, no in- >flight breakup of KE 007. One missile hit near the tail while the >second ripped off a substantial portion of the left wing. Far from an >explosion and fireball, followed by breakup of the airframe, the plane >had electric power for another minute and 44 seconds, allowing the CVR >to record a hopeless struggle as the pilots tried to regain control of >the crippled 747. The evidence indicates the airframe was intact for >the entire twelve minutes from missile hit to impact with the water. Well, I'm pretty skeptical about the missile theory too, but let's take a look at the two types of attack: The Russian missiles were fired from an aircraft _behind_ the target. The missiles fired were a radar guided one, which went for the tail, and a heat seeker which locked onto the tailpipe of one of the engines. I believe the engine hit was an outer one, but it's been a while since I read about that incident. >From behind a 747, the bulk of the radar echo is the tail -- the fuselage is behind the tail, and the tail itself is pretty big. Note that neither the engines nor the tail contain fuel tanks. The wing in the immediate area of the engine pylon doesn't contain fuel either; thus there's a fair chance the tanks-containing parts of the aircraft went their separate ways basically intact or spewing fuel into airspace that wasn't on fire. On the other hand, a radar guided missile fired from _underneath_ the plane would (probably) "see" the wing root area as returning the largest echo, and aim for that, as long as it stayed underneath, as in the case if the missile was fired from a point forward of the aircraft. That area does contain fuel, and if an explosion and fire in that area caused the wing root to fail, the whole structure would quickly disintegrate. A heat seeking missile would of course still go after the engines; Maybe if it hit an inboard engine the debris could rip into the wing root and burn the plane. I dunno. I have seen photos of a Pan Am 707 out of San Francisco with its wing burning after the number 4 engine split a turbine disk, disintegrated and departed. The wing burned and broke off at the No. 4 pylon. The pilot managed to nurse the plane back to an airfield after shutting down fuel flow to the departed engine, putting the fire out. Jet fuel fires can burn through structures quite nicely if you can get them started in the first place. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi (Timo Niroma) Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:08 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) says: > >A popular theory for the crash of TWA flight 800 seems to be that it >was shot down using a missile (a Stinger?) from a hand-held launcher, >either launched from short (allegedly out of range) or from a boat. >Reports of a streak in the sky and a radar blip merging with TW 800 >are used to support this notion, though the military says the blip was >a momentary electronic phantom and that the 747 was both too high and >too far off shore to be within range of such a missile. >(cuts) All I have heard in Finnish news, 1. the radar echo 2. one pilot seeing some outside the plabe before the explosion 3. the plane crashing into two peaces 4. the pilot saying, that there eas first a small explosion and then a bigger one 5. a possible mayday but not much else point in my opinion to one direction: a meteorite. As NASA recently announced the amount of meteorites pouring into our atmosphere is grossly underestimated. And they have hit cars, they have hit houses, here in Finland, and there in US. I think it's only a question of time when one hits an aeroplane. The danger is even bigger than for a car, because there is much less atmosphere above an aeroplain to break up an meteorite and still they sometimes reach the ground. I suggest this only because this is seldom taken as a real possibility as it should. Timo Niroma an amateur astronomer From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Tas Papadopoulos" Subject: Re: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: COMPUS Services Corporation Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:08 Message-ID: How true is the rumor that the plane stopped somewhere after Athens for "re-fueling"? Supposedely it was on the ground for about 1.5 hours. This is from a passenger. Didn't get the place, but it was supposedly a very large airport built during WWII. From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: awkurtz@aol.com Subject: Re: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Reply-To: awkurtz@aol.com (AWKurtz) Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:08 Message-ID: Remember that old B747 sometimes use to lost some of their engines. May someone could find out, if the Boeing Strut-Modification SB has been performed at this TWA 747 ! From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:08 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Doug Snow (HUF)" Subject: Re: Air Transport Association "Subject Headers" Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:08 Message-ID: On 21 Jul 1996, Paul Makinen wrote: > I have a document that refers to "ATA Headers": For example, ATA 21 > refers to Air Conditioning Systems, ATA 23 is Radio Equipment, ATA 32 is > Landing Gear, ATA 25 is Passenger Cabin, etc... > > Does anyone know what document these are from? Those are from ATA specification 100, which categorizes aircraft equipment. In a minimum equipment list, items in chapter 21 are all of the air conditioning system items and so on spec 100 is extremely important in the industry, in that most all tech manuals are numbered according to it. ----- Douglas Snow (HUF) dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie American International Airways (AIA/HUF) Opinions are like B727s, everyone has one and this one's mine! From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:09 Message-ID: Steve Lacker wrote: >falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) wrote: >> >>The answer to "why bother?" is specific fuel consumption. The >>recovered energy in the exhaust put the fuel efficiency of turbo >>compounds in a class by themselves among aircraft engines. They were >>almost as good as diesels! >I agree that SFC of turbo-compounds was astounding... but was that really the >motivation?? For ultra-long range flights, it would appear that it was. >And since you mentioned it... why aren't we overrun with diesel engined >aircraft? Poor power-to-weight ratio? Dr. Junkers in pre-war Germany was an advocate of the aircraft diesel. The Jumo series 2-stroke opposed-piston turbo-diesels exhibited excellent power (well over 1hp per cubic inch at altitude, something that sea-level automotive power-plants have only recently achieved), remarkable SFC and low-RF -emissions (important in those pre-FM-transciever days). It would appear that interest in this configuration did not survive the war. -tim From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:09 Message-ID: In brumstik@interaccess.com (broomstick) writes: >Southwest Airlines has never crashed either, after several decades of >operation. It's the only American airline with no crashes. Lessee, there's also: America West Frontier (the new one; maybe the old one too) Reno Air Midway (the new one; maybe the old one too) Western Pacific etc. From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: MD-90 experiences Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:09 Message-ID: In Arnold@reedycreek.stanford.edu (Arnold Tang) writes: >In article , dtuttle@ciesin.org (D.>Tuttle) wrote: >>..confirmed the MD-90 dispatch problems. >Hmm, does the A320 have the same problem with the V2500-series engine? The A320 does have its share of problems when OAT is above 95F; the EGT tends to go overtemp. I have heard that a lot of the problems with the MD-90 are its new 'improved' Allied-Signal electrical system. It is putting out severe over, and under- voltages, which are damaging some of the avionics units. RD From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:09 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: Daussault Mercure (was Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:09 Message-ID: Philippe DEPONDT wrote: >tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) writes: >|> Karl Swartz wrote: >|> >Back to the JT8D, it's also on first generation 737s (-100 and -200) >|> >and the rare Dassault Mercure. >|> I notice extreme visual similarities between this aircraft and >|> the more recent Airbus A319/320/321. Even odder, I was reading >|> in a 1977 airliners book that Daussault was considering a >|> stretched CFM-56 powered Mercure for early 1980's delivery. >|> >|> Does the A320 derive from this 737 lookalike? >Unlikely. In the Airbus venture, I believe Dassault is only a sub-contractor >to Aerospatiale >By the way, the Mercure was a flop since the only compagny ever to use it >was Air Inter. The last Mercure was removed from service last year. I know that. But there are other airframes that lead more complex lives - the DeHavilland 146, nee Hawker Siddley 164, nee BaE 146 nee Avro Regional jet. It also appears that configuration aerodynamicists tend to be extremely conservative with civil projects. One wonders how much commonality exists between a DC-9-10 and a MD-90-40! (especially given than the 9-10 was a 75 seater, and the 90-40 is advertised for over 200 pax) (or from a 737-100 to a 737-800). -tim From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:10 Message-ID: Delta Airlines also has some of these new tugs, and at a recent Delta family function, one of the tugs was on display, attended by the engineering manager of the program handling the new tugs. I spent a while looking at the tug and talking with the engineer. In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >> How much does that add to the block time? I'd think that taxi time >> would be significantly longer with a tug than on engine power. >>Why would it take longer? > Obviously because I'd expect the top speed for the tug to be slower > than the best taxi speeds. The tugs can move airplanes much faster than conventional tugs because they are hydraulically driven and because of the method of (non-)attachment to the aircraft. The hydraulic transmission has no gear shifting, so as the tug accelerates, there is no jerk as the tugs shifts gears (as does a conventional tug). Similarly, since there is no towbar attached to a point on the nose gear strut, but instead the whole wheel is picked up, there is less jostling of the gear, again allowing for higher speed. Whether the new tug can tow as fast as the plane can taxi is still doubtful, but it sure makes for better time than the conventional tugs. >>Unlike a convential tug, which uses a drawbar connected to the front >>wheels, this new tug has a wide slot in the back, going to the center >>of the tug. It backs up until the front wheels are in the middle of the >>tug, and then somehow grabs the front wheels and LIFTS them off the >>ground. > > United has at least one at SFO as well. It does seem to move at a > pretty good clip, but I'd still be surprised if taxiing wasn't at > least potentially faster. > > I'd also wonder about a tug that lifts the nose with a fully loaded > aircraft, as opposed to an empty aircraft. Weight might be all that > much different, since most of the weight is on the mains, but the > balance might be enough different to make the practice questionable. The engineer made no indication of weight or balance being of concern. The new tugs are very expensive (on the order of three to five times the cost of the conventional ones), but he said that the fuel savings (and presumably engine wear as well) would result in the entire purchase price of each new tug being recovered in less than a year of operations. -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@libove.MindSpring.com +1 770 552 0543 home +1 404 705 2867 work Roswell, GA 30075 U.S.A. The SouthEast Regional Internet Society SERIS - Enhancing Your Time On-Line From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: McElravy Subject: RE: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:10 Message-ID: This is off the thread, but on the topic of NWA DC-9s. I submitted this same question to the AIRLINE mailing list but for some reason the moderator didn't approve it, so I'm still left wondering. In an upcoming trip to Colorado Springs from Austin (not my home) I am flying Northwest (for the first time actually). The itinerary that the travel agency printed says the aircraft is a DC-9, but I wonder if it might actually be an MD-80 (technically a DC-9, though). On the NWA website (www.nwa.com/) I brought up the itinerary for my flight (779, I think) and the aircraft code is D9S. I'm wondering if the S is for "super" as in "DC-9 Super 82" (aka MD-82.) NWA has quite a number of different DC-9 makes and I've seen the code DC9 on the web page too, so I'm pretty sure they are putting me on an MD-82 (one of the ugliest birds in the sky.) I'm hoping it _is_ an MD-82 because on the DC-9-10 seating chart I looked at my seat is in the extreme rear, noise central and the MD-82 should be longer, meaning I'm farther from the engine and less likely to be deafened!! In short, just what kind of plane are they putting me on? Any help would be great, but I'm leaving on the 24th so obviously I'd like to know before then. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: METAR/TAF training materials Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telepath Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:10 Message-ID: >From July 1st, US civil aviation sources converted surface observations and terminal forecasts to the ICAO METAR and TAF formats which other ICAO signatories have been using for some time. The FAA has produced an 8-page pocket guide as pub num FAA/ASY-20 96/001 You can call 202-267-7770 or FAX 202-366-7083 for a copy. The FAA homepage has a pointer to the Nat Weather Service METAR/TAF info on its homepage: http://www.faa.gov/osite.htm#weather The NWS homepage has useful pointers to other FAA resources on its homepage: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oso/oso1/oso12/metar.htm ref:USAF unclassified briefing materials. brian Altus OK From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:10 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: FYI, B757 crash at Bermuda (NOT?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:10 Message-ID: >>I thought that the accident was after take-off from Puerto Plata.... >>or has it moved to Bermuda? > > Obviously a minor bit of confusion on the original author's part. The > crash took place off the coast of the Dominican Republic, near Puerto > Plata, from whence the aircraft departed. The report in The Guardian immediately after the crash, which I summarised on Airliners, included a map showing the crash site in relation to the coast. The map also showed what purported to be the boundary of the Bermuda Triangle. (The crash site was just outside it.) There was no reference to this in the text of the Guardian's report, but I mentioned it in my summary. At least one person on the list criticised me for this. I suppose I had better take the opportunity to make it clear that I do not believe the crash involved a UFO! :-) 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 Jul 22 01:53:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Rudi Vavra" Subject: Re: FYI, B757 crash at Bermuda. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Goodfox Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: flying@ozemail.com.au Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:11 Message-ID: John N. Cothran wrote: > As an engineer in the flight simulation industry with over 15 years > designing the math models used for flight training simulators for > several aircraft, including both the B757 and B767, I concur that > the aircraft's response in a stall would most likely be as you > mentioned. The major problem in this incident seems to me to be the > inability of the pilots to make the correct choice based on the > information available to them at the time, and, let's face it, we > may never know exactly what that was. As a pilot myself, I think > this incident serves best as a reminder of what can happen when we > as pilots forget to observe EVERY piece of data available to us, not > the least of which is the "seat of the pants" data we get simply by > having our asses strapped to the hardware. Yes, but the "seat of the pants" data can be misleading in IMC, and most (if not all) pilots are taught to trust their instruments before their other senses. Spatial disorientation occurs much more frequently than instrument failure. True, the pilots should identify the failed instrument and act accordingly, but it (obviously) isn't as easy as it sounds. > Let us not forget that > even the best of modern avionics and flight management systems > available to us today are not and never will be a substitute for > plain old smarts. Again, as far as I understand, they were flying at night in IMC. Plain old "smarts" obviously weren't enough. Otherwise they'd still be with us. The repeat occurrence of this type of accident (although rare in the airline industry) is proof of the fact that our "senses" are not good enough to deal with this kind of situation EVERY time. Only good (and frequent) training on how to recognise and react to instrument failure in a REAL emergency will improve the pilots' chances to react correctly in such emergencies. Most accidents show that the crew react EXACTLY as trained in an emergency. The investigation will probably show why their reaction was inappropriate in this case, and recommend some changes in training. Rudi -- Rudi Vavra http://www.ozemail.com.au/~flying (Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines) -- <> From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ranger30@ix.netcom.com (Steven Macom) Subject: MD-88 Tail Cone (Delta) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:11 Message-ID: In several pictures of the Delta MD-88 in Pensacola, the tail cone is missing. What's accessible through the tail cone? (The cone doesn't "fall off" to open a chute, does it?!?) Steve From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: johnmhunt@ipa.net (John M. Hunt) Subject: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Partners of America Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:11 Message-ID: This question applies to all glass cockpits, but perhaps a bit more emphatically to the A320 family. I am specifically addressing the apparent over-automation aspects of modern airliners, and am not in any way attacking the replacement of the cumbersome and vulnerable control cables by electronic "fly-by-wire" signals. I have been reading over the old archived posting of this news group (many thanks to you, moderator!) and have come across a large number of postings regarding accidents or near accidents involving automation in the "glass cockpit" aircraft. A recurring theme seems to be the pilot fighting the computer control system in an attempt to regain manual control of the aircraft in an emergency. I cannot imagine any reason why total control of the aircraft on all three axes and total throttle control cannot be trusted to the pilot the instant he deems it desirable. I agree it would be desirable to provide continuous trim control during autopilot operation to avoid relinquishing control to the pilot in a seriously out-of-trim condition, and am willing to make an exception for keeping the yaw damper operative unless the pilot takes some simple specified overt action to insist on rudder control independent of yaw control assistance, but surely this is very easy and non-confusing to implement. It is inconceivable that todays pilots with their excellent simulator training are not at least equal to pilots of an earlier era. If this is indeed so, why the reluctance to simply trust the pilot to fly the aircraft manually? I realize that some exotic high-performance military aircraft achieve superior performance by accepting inherent instability which is neatly overcome by mandatory autopilot assistance, and that such aircraft may indeed be totally unflyable by ordinary mortals without such continuous assistance. I find it beyond belief that newly designed airliners of the past decade are unstable, other than to Dutch Roll and our old friend phugoid oscillations. I also realize that some tiny additional increment in safety may be achieved by automatically preventing overstressing the airframe by a ham-handed pilot, but surely this is the classic case of a solution looking for a problem. Another pet peeve is the required manual computer keyboard input of such numeric values as rate of descent. I have no objection to this, especially as no really graceful substitute for such data entry comes to mind. But surely it would add very little cost to provide a computer voice confirmation of exactly what the pilot has actually entered, not, of course, what he THOUGHT he was entering.. Such a service could even be provided selectively in languages other than English to provide the greatest possible reassurance to a sizeable portion of the world's airline pilots. It is awfully difficult to imagine a scenario for such automated voice confirmation seriously misleading the pilot in the event of partial and unidentified failure of the voice feedback circuitry, since the pilot. if at all suspicious, can easily verify the actual setting by existing numeric displays. Anyone have any thoughts in this area? John M. Hunt johnmhunt@ipa.net From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:11 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Newtimes Ltd. Philippines" Subject: Re: interesting landing - runway switch at 800ft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Newtimes Ltd. Philippines Reply-To: 1504@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net, &@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net, 1505@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net, W.@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net, Tower@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net, Phil.@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net, Stock@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net, Exchange@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net, Pasig@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net, Philippines@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:11 Message-ID: > Do you think that '800 ft' to quote the pilot is a reasonable height to > switch runways at? > Assuming that the A320 flight crew had the plane established on the glideslope (which is usually inclined at 3 degrees), and assuming that the aircraft's reference approach speed (Vref) was also being followed, 800 ft should not be a problem to do some maneuvering as you described. Also, 800 ft appears to be above the runways decision height/altitude (we'll have to check the approach plates..) Finally, since it is the pilot-in-command (PIC) decision to go with the last minute switch, I am inclined to assumed that he thought it to be absolutely safe. I hope the above the answers your question. Best regards, ted perez From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Thomson Subject: Re: interesting landing - runway switch at 800ft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Myorganisation Reply-To: John@jthomson.demon.co.uk Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:12 Message-ID: In article entmlf@staffs.ac.uk writes: > Hi > > I recently landed at Frankfurt in an A320, and had been > allowed to sit in the cocpit. There are two parallel > runways, and we were cleared to land on the left one. > At about 800 ft, the pilot banked to the right, > and lined up with the right hand runway. A good > landing followed. I remember in the 1970's after some kind of terrorist activities, some very wild rides into Frankfort. This would have been late in the 70's, I used to go there once or twice a week, usually with Lufthansa, and I remember quite steep banks & turns over the local woods, this was supposed to make it difficult for the terrorists to aim their weapons. Does anyone else remember this, and what would the flight rules have been ? -- John Thomson From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aschonland@aol.com (ASchonland) Subject: Airline Safety Study underway Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: aschonland@aol.com (ASchonland) Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:12 Message-ID: We are busy with groundbreaking web based research and can use your help. We expect that your being in this newsgroup is because you fly and have an interest in flying. Please would you complete a survey at htt:/www.sandiego.com/cic/saftey.html . Your information will be pooled with others to provide the airline and aircraft manufacturers with information on how the passenger feels about airline safety. Thank you From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: andydvm97@aol.com (Andy DVM97) Subject: Re: Q: Black Stripe, TWA Aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: andydvm97@aol.com (Andy DVM97) Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:12 Message-ID: I understand that the stripe is to aid in ice detection. Fokker 100s have a similar stripe, albeit only on the leading edge, for this purpose. Andy From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Doug Snow (HUF)" Subject: Re: interesting landing - runway switch at 800ft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:12 Message-ID: At least here in the states, it depends on the distance between the runways. At airports like SFO where there is a very narrow distance between the runways, the sidestep landing minimums are pretty low (if sidestep is allowed at all at SFO, dont know just an example). Most sidestep minimums arent much higher than normal circling minimums. And without being at work and having access to our Jepps, I'd venture to say that the MDA for a sidestep to the North Runway 7L/25R at FRA, isnt that much worse MDA-wise than a generic circling MDA at all. Again in the states, all instrument approaches are generated using TERPS criteria, and internationally ICAO PANS-OPS criteria becomes is what is used when drawing up the charts. Somewhere on the web an airline driver has a TERPS page, and I think he has a discussion of some of the differences. ----- Douglas Snow (HUF) dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie American International Airways (AIA/HUF) SITA=HUFOOCB From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: interesting landing - runway switch at 800ft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:12 Message-ID: >if sidestep is allowed at all at SFO, dont know just an example They are, at least between 28R and 28L. I've been on flights that have done it. -- 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 Jul 22 01:53:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Gliders and Radar Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:13 Message-ID: In article , ability@zetnet.co.uk (Joe Curry) wrote: > I have just watched a UK programme that highlights the fact that gliders are > invisible to radar.... > Surely a glider could be fitted with a radar reflector? Even if the > glider had radio contact with ATC, they would not be absolutely sure > of it,s position. What about hang gliders? All that lies between > safety and disaster is a piece of fabric and a body. If the glider is metal, it will show up on radar the same as a Cessna or Piper airplane. However, the computers in some air traffic control facilities are set to eliminate all targets that are moving at less than 50 mph. I don't know if this is still the case, but it was in the mid-1970s at Approach and Departure Control at Honolulu International. It was to keep the highway traffic from showing up on the scopes. I remember being told and shown by a controller that the Seaflight Boeing jetfoils that were in operation during that time would suddenly appear on the screen as they passed through 50 mph. It was a real pain, the controller said, because the route the jetfoils took off Waikiki put them under the flight paths of the jets coming in from the east to land at HNL. All of a sudden there would be this target moving right through the flighpaths with no transponder code or anything. I suppose with the newer technology that's in the centers today this wouldn't be as much of a problem, but if they still drop signals moving less than 50 mph from the scopes, that could make a glider invisible on radar. If that's the case, the only solution would be to install a transponder on the glider. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rob Subject: Re: Three questions. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: TaC Ltd. Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:13 Message-ID: go arounds due to late clearance of precending aircraft are very common here in KL From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,eunet.aviation Path: bounce-back From: plaut@sc2a.unige.ch (Olivier PLAUT) Subject: *** Flying Colours Airlines ?? *** Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:13 Message-ID: Hello, A friend of mine, who is pilot and seeking for a job, would like to have the address of a brand new company whose name is: Flying Colours Airlines This company should be operating in 1997 a fleet of 4 B-757, from Manchester and London Gatwick. Could someone in the U.K. find if they have already a permanent address and mail it to me? Thanks in advance. Olivier -- Olivier Plaut | Institute of Forensic Medicine | Phone: +41 (22) 702.56.09 Toxicology Unit | Fax: +41 (22) 789.24.17 University of Geneva | E-mail: plaut@sc2a.unige.ch From kls Mon Jul 22 01:53:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Daan Vlaskamp Subject: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 22 Jul 96 01:53:13 Message-ID: >The crew of a (TWA?) 727 was sort of "playing" with the flaps at cruise >to milk out a little bit better fuel economy. They did a barrel roll >before recovering, losing 10's of thousands of feet of altitude in the >process. Not a boring flight at that point. Never heard that story before. Do you have more information about this "incident" ? Thanks, Daan Vlaskamp The Netherlands From news Fri Jul 19 07:31:55 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!hookup!news.mathworks.com!uunet!bounce-back From: dave@dogwood.com (Dave Cornejo) Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.business.import-export,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.piloting,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: 2nd CFV: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo moderated Followup-To: poster Date: 19 Jul 1996 13:36:49 -0000 Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net Approved: newgroups-request@uunet.uu.net Message-ID: <837783407.19722@uunet.uu.net> References: <836945290.14447@uunet.uu.net> LAST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) moderated group misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Newsgroups line: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Questions/comments regarding air cargo. (Moderated) Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 30 Jul 1996. This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions about this proposal should be directed to the proponent. Proponent: Michal Douglas Proponent: Martin Brennan Votetaker: Dave Cornejo RATIONALE: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo The air industry is well supported in the areas of recreational flight by several very good newsgroups. The commercial air industry is likewise well supported in the area of general passenger airline information. All that is missing is the existence of a newsgroup dedicated to the air cargo and freight forwarding industry. Currently, air cargo makes up more than 35% of the total value of all goods shipped anywhere in the world and employs thousands. Questions and comments realated to the operations of domestic and international air carriers would be discussed as well as addressing the interests of small package air freight companies. The air related interests of the freight forwarding community would also be discussed as there is no existing source for exchange of this information. CHARTER: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Discussion will be allowed on a variety of subjects deemed either too specific in nature or inappropriate by the charters of the existing newsgroups. Individuals and companies will be allowed to request and trade information and comments on the status of the air cargo industry. Exportation questions would be addressed for the beginner as well as specific inquires by shippers. (i.e. "Who supplies ground handling in Merida, Mexico?" or "How do I clear customs in Austrailia?") Shared experiences of both the air cargo and forwarding community would provide immensely helpful information to each other in regard to the do's and don'ts of dealing with unfamiliar airports, cultures, regulations, companies, procedures, and governments. Discussions of a political/violent/inflammatory/abusive nature will not be allowed. Any blatant advertisements, illegal rate discussions, or overblown press releases will likewise be excluded by the moderators. This is not a group in which general aviation or passenger flights may be discussed - there are other groups for those categories. This group is purely intended for those who own, import, export, operate in, or are interested in the business of air cargo and domestic/international air shipping procedures. The group will be moderated by experts in the field of air cargo and freight forwarding. They will insure the validity of posts and eliminate repetitive, redundant, illegal, and obviously inappropriate posts. All nationalities of airlines will be allowed. The language of the group will be English. END CHARTER. MODERATOR INFO: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Moderator: Jim Powell Moderator: Martin Brennan Moderator: Michal Douglas Administrative contact address: aircargo@cris.com Article submission address: aircargo@cris.com END MODERATOR INFO. HOW TO VOTE Send E-MAIL to: mtac@infobahn.net Your e-mail message should contain one and only one of the following statements: I vote YES on misc.transport.air-industry.cargo I vote NO on misc.transport.air-industry.cargo You may also vote ABSTAIN or CANCEL; these are not counted as votes and don't affect the vote count. Anything else will be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. The votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledgment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly. If you later change your mind you may vote again from the same email address; only your last valid vote will count. VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: Standard Guidelines for voting apply. One person, one vote. Votes must be mailed directly from the voter to the votetaker. Anonymous, forwarded or proxy votes are not valid; this includes votes generated by WWW/HTML/CGI forms. Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions will mean that your vote does not get counted. Duplicate votes are resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote. Addresses and votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results post. The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not redistribute this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted to news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited copies of this CFV will result in those votes being cancelled. When in doubt, ask the votetaker. Common errors include quoting the entire article and sending your vote to the vote-takers personal address. Either of these two could result in your vote not being counted. DISTRIBUTION: This CFV has been cross-posted to: alt.business.import-export alt.disasters.aviation misc.transport.air-industry sci.aeronautics.airliners rec.aviation.ifr rec.aviation.piloting Pointers to the CFV will be posted by the proponent in: alt.business.import-export.services rec.aviation.owning rec.aviation.marketplace This CFV will also be sent to these mailing lists: HTFN m.t.a-i.c. AIRLINE From kls Fri Jul 26 10:59:12 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drranu@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (Emarit Ranu) Subject: What is the small hole in the window? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:12 Message-ID: Every commercial plane I have been in, the windows have a small, what looks like a hole (or metal insert), at the bottom of it. It is the window pane between the inner plexiglass one and the outer pane. What is this thing, and why is it there? Thanks a lot. -- -Emarit Ranu, KG0CQ 73's drranu@holly.ColoState.EDU Electrical Engineering Colorado State University All generalizations are bad. Censorship: ###### _._ __. _____ _._. __._ From kls Fri Jul 26 10:59:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: vee12@airmail.net (Butch Vaillancourt) Subject: Re: MD-88 Tail Cone (Delta) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:13 Message-ID: >In several pictures of the Delta MD-88 in Pensacola, the tail cone is >missing. > >What's accessible through the tail cone? (The cone doesn't "fall off" >to open a chute, does it?!?) When the back door is closed on a 88 or 90 a catwalk falls down from the ceiling just behind the door. In an emergency, the back door is opened, the tailcone falls off and a emergency slide is inflated. Butch V. Delta/mtc From kls Fri Jul 26 10:59:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: James Buongiovanni Subject: Re: MD-88 Tail Cone (Delta) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Good John's Shaperite Concepts Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:13 Message-ID: Steven Macom wrote: > > In several pictures of the Delta MD-88 in Pensacola, the tail cone is > missing. > > What's accessible through the tail cone? (The cone doesn't "fall off" > to open a chute, does it?!?) Steve, The Tail Cone of the DC-9/MD-80 aircraft can be jettisoned to allow the inflation of the evacuation slide. There is also a door at the bottom of some of the Tail Cones depending on the model, to allow maintenance it the tail area. Air Cycle Machines among other things are back there. Also the Flight Data Recorder. Regards, From kls Fri Jul 26 10:59:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: andrewsa@comm.mot.com (Andrew Sapuntzakis) Subject: "tug" was Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Motorola Inc Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:13 Message-ID: In article , tilman@nscale.activesw.com (Tilman Sporkert) writes: >[...] > Unlike a convential tug, which uses a drawbar connected to the front > wheels, this new tug has a wide slot in the back, going to the center > of the tug. It backs up until the front wheels are in the middle of the > tug, and then somehow grabs the front wheels and LIFTS them off the > ground. [...] Doesn't this design also get rid of the need for different drawbars for different models of planes? Most planes are already equipped with a nose gear ... CU Andrew S. andrewsa@cc.comm.mot.com From kls Fri Jul 26 10:59:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop..Going GOOD!!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:13 Message-ID: Mark Ingram (markt@mickey.mo-net.com) wrote: : On 17 Jul 1996, Karl Swartz wrote: : > >Flight 895 left ORD ... weighed 842,000 lbs. and had 384,500 lbs. of fuel : of course, the closer they can get it to whatever the minimum requirement : is, the more money they make (the fuel is paid for by the gallon, but the : number of btu's it actually produces per gallon is a direct function of : its density). To put it more simply, the thrust is directly proportional to the weight of fuel and air that passes through the engines. -- Gerry From kls Fri Jul 26 10:59:13 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: alaw@us.oracle.com (Alvin W. Law) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop..Going GOOD!!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA Reply-To: alaw@us.oracle.com Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:13 Message-ID: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >The real test, IMHO, will be this coming winter when the strong jet stream > >will push the flight time up above 17 hours. > > The flight is currently seasonal, with service scheduled to be > suspended around October due to winter headwinds. What would happen to that hard-faught slot at HKG? Will UA add another HKG-NRT flight or will UA use this slot for additional non-stop service to the West Coast? Slots at HKG is at a premium so I would be surprised to see if UA will have it wasted during winter months. From kls Fri Jul 26 10:59:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop..Going GOOD!!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:14 Message-ID: >> The flight is currently seasonal, with service scheduled to be >> suspended around October due to winter headwinds. >What would happen to that hard-faught slot at HKG? Will UA add >another HKG-NRT flight or will UA use this slot for additional >non-stop service to the West Coast? US-Asia traffic tends to be seasonal. Perhaps not as much as trans-Atlantic, but UA and presumably other carriers add significant capacity for the summer peaks. Presumably this seasonality affects HKG, so there's not a problem with leaving it idle for the winter. Slots are at a tremendous premium at LHR, perhaps more than anywhere else, yet several years ago UA flew once daily LHR-SFO/LAX but added a second flight (not necessarily daily) for the summer peak without stealing slots from other routes. -- 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 Fri Jul 26 10:59:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: triebelh@rastro.Colorado.EDU (Triebelhorn Jeffrey) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop..Fuel load 16-jul Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:14 Message-ID: In article , Mark Ingram wrote: >> >Flight 895 left ORD ... weighed 842,000 lbs. and had 384,500 lbs. of fuel >> ... a rather dated reference I found claims a 747-400 has a >> fuel capacity of about 52,800 gallons. At a rough value of 7 lbs per >> gallon, that would be 369,600 lbs. Obviously either additional fuel >> tanks have been added or 7 lbs/gal is low (or both). > >The "nominal" density of Jet-A is 6.67 pounds per gallon, which in this >case would yield 57,388 gallons. However, the Jet-A that I have been >using all summer has been closer to 6.4 pounds per gallon. > >That would yield, in this case, 60,078 gallons. For 895 on jul 15, the weight of the jet A fuel was figured at 6.73. (that was on revision #5) the fuel was distributed as follows..( in LBS) * indicated FULL load in tank. 2 RESV 8900* 1 MAIN 30150* 2 MAIN 84450* CENTER 115100 HST 22000 (horizontal stabilizer) 3 MAIN 84450* 4 MAIN 30150* 3 RESV 8900* ------ Total 384100 (requested) Actual 384500 (generated by ACARS at push @ 3:48, 400 extra by fueler) Actual 381900 (at gear up @ 4:14) DIF 2600 (used during taxi/tow) (taxi burn lbs/min 130) It must have been towed because 26 min of taxi with engines = 3380lbs burned.. Not to mention that the APU was most likely fired up no later than 10 min before departure. And as I said earlier, this flight was released for 14R with a Temp of 89 deg., Flaps 20, and Alt of 30.03 with a planned tow to 14R. It blocked in HKG with 28700. jt -- Jeff Triebelhorn __|__ triebelh@rastro.colorado.edu ---0--(*)--0--- http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~triebelh/Home.html ! ! ! DIA-B32 & B36: 777 MASTERS :-) United Airlines Ramp Rat From kls Fri Jul 26 10:59:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jason Casey Subject: Re: Q: Black Stripe, TWA Aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: GEC-Marconi Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:14 Message-ID: Could be something to do with the fact that the Black area of the wing is hotter, so birds don't stand on that bit when the plane is parked, and then you don't get bird crap anywhere important ! From kls Fri Jul 26 10:59:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Michael Leduc Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Canada Reply-To: mikel@alcor.concordia.ca Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:14 Message-ID: Don Stokes wrote: > Why is this? I thought Boeing was designing a new wing for the B747-500 > and -600, since the existing B747 wing is pretty much at its limits on > the -400. I would have thought that the aircraft could be stretched > further if the wing was up to the job. > > Experience says that if there's one thing Boeing knows best about > building jet transports it's getting the wing right. That may be true, but one must not extend the wing too much. The maximum wing span has just about been reached for commercial aircraft, for the time being. Extending the wing size would mean new airport terminal design for nose-in-gate positioning or parking the aircraft out on an apron and using shuttle busses. Shuttle busses are used at some airports but this only adds to the passenger inconvenience. From kls Fri Jul 26 10:59:14 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:14 Message-ID: >That may be true, but one must not extend the wing too much. The >maximum wing span has just about been reached for commercial aircraft, >for the time being. Extending the wing size would mean new airport >terminal design for nose-in-gate positioning or parking the aircraft >out on an apron and using shuttle busses. It's more than just that -- there's also the problem of clearance on the runways and taxiways. Think of the "alley" at LAX, the parallel taxiways just west of the Bradley International Terminal, or the typical taxiway parallel to a runway. Some of these already have restrictions that preclude two 747-400s from passing, at least at certain spots. -- 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 Fri Jul 26 10:59:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rparpatt@pop.uniserve.com (Thundercraft) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: UNIServe Online Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:15 Message-ID: >and -600, since the existing B747 wing is pretty much at its limits on >the -400. I would have thought that the aircraft could be stretched >further if the wing was up to the job. > >Experience says that if there's one thing Boeing knows best about >building jet transports it's getting the wing right. I think they got the wing right on the 777. Notice the absence of any winglets. From kls Fri Jul 26 10:59:15 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 26 Jul 96 10:59:15 Message-ID: In article , amb@bronze.lcs.mit.edu says... > >Doug Snow wrote: [[snipped]] >Now, the thing I'm really curious about: aircrew are required to have >type-specific ratings for "large" aircraft, plus a few others (see FAR >61.5 and AC61.1). Will everything between 12,500 lbs. and 41,000 lbs. >really now be legally flyable by any random ME pilot? It's an >interesting if not scary speculation, although I'm actually more >concerned about the fact that, when flying a light aircraft, the >separation standards between me and all of the newly "small" aircraft >just went *poof*... > Although ATP licences seem to grant god like privileges... the powers that really be are the insurance companies.... not many ATP's will be able to fly an aircraft above 4000 LBS (never mind up to 40,000 LBS) wihtout the insurance company being satisfied with his ability and qualifications. It is my understanding that any revenue flying on a ME requires a specific type rating (In Canada it is the Pilot Proficieny Check). As to what's HEAVY and what's NOT heavy... Instead of using categories such as HEAVY / MEDIUM to decide whether an aircraft should wait a little longer for departure, why not use a delta weight to decide... eg if aircraft A is (say) 30% heavier than B, then B should take the full 2 minute disipation time before takeoff, or get an extra minute separation on approach? Alan. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:31 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: drela@athena.mit.edu (Mark Drela) Subject: Re: A340 speed Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:31 Message-ID: In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: |> In article , barr@netcom.com (Keith |> Barr) wrote: |> |> > In article , |> > C. Marin Faure wrote: |> > >The problem is drag, which as you know, goes up as the speed goes up. |> > |> > This is only partially correct. Below L/D max, drag increases as you |> > slow down due to the increase in induced drag. |> > |> > >When the cruise speed is pushed up, this extra parasite drag, plus the |> > >increased induced drag you're going to get anyway... |> > |> > This is incorrect. As you go faster, parasite drag increases, but since |> > you are lowering your required angle of attack, induced drag decreases. |> > |> |> I guess there's a good reason why I'm not an engineer. I always thought |> induced drag was the product of producing lift, and not necessarily in |> direct relationaship to angle of attack. I've always thought you can |> increase lift two ways: by increasing the wing's angle of attack, or by |> moving the wing through the air faster. In either case, the induced drag |> would go up if it's a product of producing lift. Don't be so hard on yourself. Induced drag only depends on lift L and dynamic pressure q , as can be seen from the usual lifting-line result: 2 (L / span) D_induced = ------------ pi q e In level flight, where L is fixed, induced drag clearly varies as 1 / q . Bringing the angle of attack into the argument just complicates things unnecessarily, IMHO. Mark Drela First Law of Aviation: MIT Aero & Astro "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory" From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dahler@iglobal.net (Chris Dahler) Subject: Re: What is the small hole in the window? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet Global Services, Inc. Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:32 Message-ID: In article , drranu@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU says... > Every commercial plane I have been in, the windows have a small, > what looks like a hole (or metal insert), at the bottom of it. > It is the window pane between the inner plexiglass one and the > outer pane. What is this thing, and why is it there? It's a metal insert between the two panes whose primary purpose is just to keep the panes apart should one of them try to warp. CD From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: phipps@ionet.net (Stephanie Phipps) Subject: Re: What is the small hole in the window? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: IONet Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:32 Message-ID: In article , drranu@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU says... > > > > Every commercial plane I have been in, the windows have a small, > what looks like a hole (or metal insert), at the bottom of it. > It is the window pane between the inner plexiglass one and the > outer pane. What is this thing, and why is it there? It is a hole, not a metal insert. That small hole (.060" typically) is an air bleed hole or "weep hole". In order to understand why it is there, you need to know how a common airliner cabin windows (B747/737/727,MD-80,L1011,DC9,etc) are constructed. There are two main window panes: the outer window (approx 0.3" thick) and the inner window (approx 0.2" thick-the one with the weep hole). These two windows sit in a thick rubber gasket. The outer window serves as the aircraft's skin, and provides protection from the outside elements (weather,foreign particles, wind-blast, etc.). The inner window is sort of a fail-safe pane. It would serve as the outer window if the outer window were to fail. The weep hole in the inner window allows air pressure between the two windows to equalize during cabin pressurization cycles (normal for ascent/decent). Since the windows sit in the rubber gasket, the hole is important to keep the windows from unnecessary flexure, and allows any excess moisture to escape. The third window (approx 0.1" thick), the one you can touch, is the "scratch pane". This serves only to keep the inner window from becomming damaged, smudged-up or tampered with. In addition, the outer and inner windows are made of acrylic, while the scratch pane is polycarbonate. I hope this info is useful to you. James Phipps - phipps@ionet.com Manufacturing Engineer NORDAM Transparency Div., Tulsa, OK From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: blando@cxo.dec.com (Frank Blando) Subject: Re: What is the small hole in the window? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. Reply-To: blando@cxo.dec.com Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:32 Message-ID: The inner part of the window is the only part that has the hole. It is there to allow air pressure equalization between the inside of the plane and the layer of air between the real window and the plastic / plexiglass inner window. The inner window is only there to create a pocket of air and insulate the passenger from the outer window. Remember that airplanes fly in an environment where the outside air temperature is well below freezing... Imagine puting your forehead (Or a kid's tong!) on a window that is at -60! Frank Blando Digital Customer Support Center Colorado Springs E-net address: blando@cxo.dec.com -- CompuServe: 75672,55 I do NOT speak for anyone but myself! From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:32 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:32 Message-ID: In article , Michael Leduc wrote: >Don Stokes wrote: >> Why is this? I thought Boeing was designing a new wing for the B747-500 >> and -600, since the existing B747 wing is pretty much at its limits on >> the -400. I would have thought that the aircraft could be stretched >> further if the wing was up to the job. >> >> Experience says that if there's one thing Boeing knows best about >> building jet transports it's getting the wing right. > >That may be true, but one must not extend the wing too much. The >maximum wing span has just about been reached for commercial aircraft, >for the time being. True, but that doesn't explain why the A3XX could be extended to 600-700 pax when the 747-600 would be limited to 550 pax, as per Andrew Chuang's claim. (I'm sure this has some justification, I just don't know what it is.) My gut feeling is that Airbus don't know wings as well as Boeing; certainly Aurbus wings _look_ a lot more conservative, with less sweepback, and correspondingly lower speed (sweepback affects the critical Mach number of the wing), so the issue isn't going to be getting the wing to carry the beast, or if it is, the problem is going to affect Airbus equally if not more so. Presumably the difference is in the fuselage -- what does the A3XX look like compared to the 747-600? Is the A3XX double-decked? Or just very wide? Or both? Does the -600 retain the basic 747 fuselage with a very stretched upper deck, or can it be widened by a seat or three? > Extending the wing size would mean new airport >terminal design for nose-in-gate positioning or parking the aircraft >out on an apron and using shuttle busses. > >Shuttle busses are used at some airports but this only adds to the >passenger inconvenience. I've never seen shuttle busses used to load anything much bigger than a 737 -- airports that use them usually have bridges as well for loading widebodies and use the busses to load smaller planes. To load a 747 would take rather a lot of busses (even the large ones used at airports), which doesn't scale too well -- not only in terms of passenger inconvenience but in total turnaround time. Airlines don't make money out of aircraft waiting on the ground. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mohica@ix.netcom.com (William L. Thomas) Subject: Re: MD-88 Tail Cone (Delta) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:33 Message-ID: In James Buongiovanni > The Tail Cone of the DC-9/MD-80 aircraft ... Regarding the tail cones....I've noticed some like those on Alaskan Airlines are flattened wedges, others are actual cones. What is the advantage of one over another? Just Asking Bill Thomas From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:33 Message-ID: >controllers in Boston reportedly lost contact with the flight at 840p >when it was at an altitude of approximately 7,500 ft. One of the more confusing aspects of the reporting on TWA 800 has been the wild variations in altitude. I finally saw some material over the weekend that helped explain this. Flight 800 was being tracked by a radar station at Islip, NY, which makes one 360-degree sweep every 12 seconds. At 20:31:08 EST, the radar sweep picked up TWA 800 with a transponder response indicating an altitude of 13,700 ft. On the next sweep, there was no response from the transponder, and during that interval the CVR and FDR both stopped recording abruptly. The sweep after that one picked up two distinct pieces of flight 800. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Investigattors have no evidence of a major breakup of the plane before the fireball. They believe the fireball happened 5,000 feet below the initiating event, a conclusion reached through a careful correlation of reports from pilots on other planes and with the help of a private Long Island company that provides a shadow air tracking service." The 7,500 ft altitude may have corresponded to the two pieces on the first post-breakup radar sweep of the debris. The 8,500 ft reports clearly correspond to the fireball, while the 13,700 ft is the rough altitude at which the "initiating event" occurred. -- 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 Jul 29 02:29:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: Scott & Cynthia Sullivan Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:33 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > > A popular theory for the crash of TWA flight 800 seems to be that it > was shot down using a missile (a Stinger?) from a hand-held launcher, > either launched from short (allegedly out of range) or from a boat. > ... I'm skeptical, > though I'm willing to consider a solid argument that even a small > missile could indeed have produced the observed result. I agree with Karl. I am in the air force, and while not an expert on SAM's or their capabilities, I do have some education on the subject. It seems to be unlikely a hand held missile could cause the amount of damage indicated in this incident. My understanding is that such missiles have a warhead of only a few pounds, and limited lethal ranges (about 2-3 miles). Flight 800 was 2+ miles high at the time. If it had been a missile, I think a radio call would have occured, and the plane would not have broken up completely as is the case. Scott Sullivan From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: mdonalds@calumet.yorku.ca (Corsair) Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Calumet College, York University Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:33 Message-ID: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >I still have one problem with the missile theory. Korean Airliners >007 was shot down by two missiles launched from a Soviet Sukhoi-15 >fighter, 6-12 km (the reports I have are unclear) behind it. I assume >that a fighter could carry missiles with significantly more punch than >any sort of hand-held missile. Yet there was no fireball, no in- >flight breakup of KE 007. One missile hit near the tail while the >second ripped off a substantial portion of the left wing. Far from an >explosion and fireball, followed by breakup of the airframe, the plane >had electric power for another minute and 44 seconds, allowing the CVR >to record a hopeless struggle as the pilots tried to regain control of >the crippled 747. The evidence indicates the airframe was intact for >the entire twelve minutes from missile hit to impact with the water. Bear in mind that the KAL 007 wasn't carrying as much fuel as it was nearing the end of it's flight. The 747 that crashed was fully-fueled having just taken off. In addition, both A/A missiles didn't really strike areas that would have been filled with fuel. IF a SAM downed TWA 800, it may have gone for the engines as the hottest part, which are directly below the fuel tanks. -- Corsair Web CAG of The Unofficial "Jolly Rogers" Site http://www-home.calumet.yorku.ca/mdonalds/www/home.htm From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Kronfield Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Geoprobe, Inc. Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:33 Message-ID: Has anyone considered the fact that IRAN has a number of German manufactured diesal-electric submarines capable of long range patrols, and a number of American-made hawk antiaircraft missles? It wouldn't be difficult for a submerged sub to monitor air traffic control transmissions from an exposed whip antenna, hear the clearance for takeoff and the runway number, surface, fire a hawk, and instantly submerge... Or if the submarine theory is too far out, how about a tramp steamer with a hawk? A stinger probably couldn't have done it, but a hawk would make small work of a 747. -- Paul Kronfield Houston, Texas, USA pk@geoprobe.com For FREE international and domestic long distance faxing see.... http://www.geoprobe.com From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:33 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wakefiel@access4.digex.net (doug wakefield) Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:33 Message-ID: Timo Niroma (timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi) wrote: : point in my opinion to one direction: a meteorite. : : As NASA recently announced the amount of meteorites pouring into our : atmosphere is grossly underestimated. Just an additional statistic, According to Author Ken Davis, the Chances of getting in a car accident are 100 to one, in a plane accident 20 thousand to one, being hit by a meteor 7 thousand to one. People do die in plane crashes enough so people worry about flying, maybe the meteorite idea should be taken a little more seriously. At least they would find evidence on the ocean floor of a foreign rick if it's true. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: Jan-Peter Munk Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Daimler-Benz Forschung Systemtechnik Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:34 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > > Perhaps the Soviet air-to-air missiles are so poor that they can't > match the punch of a hand-held Stinger, or maybe you just need a > really lucky shot to trigger an instant fireball. A couple of years ago I visited a German Air Force base, where some MiG-29 Fighter were operated. These Fighter belonged to the former East German Air Force. In this context we were told that it is a special feature of Soviet/Russian air-to-air missiles that they can rip off a "substantial portion of the wing [kls]". So enemy pilots should have a chance to get escaped out of their cockpits using their emergency launch seats... -- Jan-Peter Munk Daimler-Benz AG Research and Technology munk@DBresearch-berlin.de Alt-Moabit 96a JPMunk@t-online.de D-10559 Berlin -- [My opinions...] From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: rjn@csn.net (Bob Niland) Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Colorado SuperNet Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Reply-To: rjn@csn.net Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:34 Message-ID: Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: > Reports of a streak in the sky and a radar blip merging with TW 800 > are used to support this notion, though the military says the blip was > a momentary electronic phantom and that the 747 was both too high and > too far off shore to be within range of such a missile. What about space junk? Sooner or later a meteorite or some re-entering human-launched object is going to hit an aircraft in flight (if indeed it hasn't happened already, and been closed as "unknown" or "pilot error"). I assume that since NORAD (or whatever they're called these days) routinely tracks object large enough to be a threat to the shuttle, that re-entering man-made stuff can be easily ruled out (if the NTSB thinks to ask them). Is this question routinely asked and answered in air crashes? The talking heads (I hesitate to to call them "reporters") are telling us that the NTSB/FBI have a short list of three possible causes that have not been ruled out (as of 7/26/96). The way they are worded suggests that being struck by, say, a meterorite, has been ruled out. Has it? If so, how? Regards, 1001-A East Harmony Road Bob Niland Suite 503 Internet: rjn@csn.net Fort Collins Unless otherwise specifically stated, Colorado 80525 USA expressing personal opinions and NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: METAR/TAF training materials Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:34 Message-ID: The 8 page pocket guide referenced below is available at the FAA, Office of System Safety home page....please download it from that site rather than calling for distribution. Thanks ******** Subject: METAR/TAF training materials >From July 1st, US civil aviation sources converted surface observations and terminal forecasts to the ICAO METAR and TAF formats which other ICAO signatories have been using for some time. The FAA has produced an 8-page pocket guide as pub num FAA/ASY-20 96/001 You can call 202-267-7770 or FAX 202-366-7083 for a copy. The FAA homepage has a pointer to the Nat Weather Service METAR/TAF info on its homepage: http://www.faa.gov/osite.htm#weather The NWS homepage has useful pointers to other FAA resources on its homepage: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oso/oso1/oso12/metar.htm ref:USAF unclassified briefing materials. brian Altus OK From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's; and seating Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:34 Message-ID: In McElravy writes: >In an upcoming trip to Colorado Springs from Austin (not my home) I am >flying Northwest (for the first time actually). The itinerary that the >travel agency printed says the aircraft is a DC-9, but I wonder if it might>actually be an MD-80 >...MD-80 I'm farther from the engine and less likely to be deafened!! The Official Airline Guide (OAG) lists all aircraft with a 3 character code. As I remember, a D9S is a DC-9 Short, or DC9-15. That plane is an overgrown fighter with lots of power and maneuverability. I think the code for MD-80 is D80. Ask your travel agent for all the codes. If you can't get moved forward at this late date, ask at the gate. They may have no-shows. If you are able-bodied, ask for the exit row, as then you get extra legroom. Many, if not most, airlines will not pre-assign the exit row until they can see you standing on your own at the gate. My Alaska A/L MVP Frequent Flyer account allows me to reserve the exit row over the phone, because they know me. I agree about the bad seats in the rear. IMO, there should be not seats in that area, just galleys and toilets. In fact, that area assuredly exceeds OSHA limits for noise without ear protection. I have measured up to 110 dbA back there, while the DC-9 and MD-80 are extremely quiet forward of the wing, as low as 70 dba in cruise. RD From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Doug Snow (HUF)" Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:34 Message-ID: You will be on a DC9, more than likely a DC9-30. Flights operated with DC-9 equipment are coded DC9, DC9-30 are coded either D93, or D9S. Sometimes operations planning uses the equipcode D9S when they arent sure if they want to use a DC9-30/-40/or a -50 on the flight. You will not be on an MD82. NW only has 12 and they normally only get used for flights to the west coast, and selected high traffic east US routes. I used to work for NW. ----- Douglas Snow (HUF) dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie American International Airways (AIA/HUF) Opinions are like B727s, everyone has one and this one's mine! From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wjcandee@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (Bill Candee) Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:35 Message-ID: McElravy wrote: > >In short, just what kind of plane are they putting me on? A DC-9-30. Northwest designates its DC-9-50s as D95, and its DC-9-10s as DC9. --Bill Candee in NYC P.S. Why not have just called and asked them? From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:35 Message-ID: McElravy wrote: >This is off the thread, but on the topic of NWA DC-9s. I submitted this >same question to the AIRLINE mailing list but for some reason the moderator >didn't approve it, so I'm still left wondering. > >In an upcoming trip to Colorado Springs from Austin (not my home) I am >flying Northwest (for the first time actually). The itinerary that the >travel agency printed says the aircraft is a DC-9, but I wonder if it might >actually be an MD-80 (technically a DC-9, though). I have never seen a NW MD-80 in Austin, only DC-9's. American, Delta, and Continental all operate MD-8x aircraft out of Austin, but I've NEVER seen one here wearing NW colors. >(www.nwa.com/) I brought up the itinerary for my flight (779, I think) and >the aircraft code is D9S. My travel iteneraries (American Express Travel Services) frequently use "S" and "Stretch" interchangeably. Not only does that term sound silly, but it becomes even more humorous when I fly a Delta 727 or 737: since their fleet of 727s consists entirely of -200s, I always get a "727 Stretch". Similarly, even a 737-200 is called a "737 Stretch" as is a 737-300. I haven't flown a DC-9 in about 6 years, but the last time I did it was a DC-9-40, and it was labelled as a "DC-9 Stretch". However, when I fly an MD-80 or MD-90, it has simply been labelled as an MD-80 or MD-90. The travel agency never notes any difference between say, and MD-82 and MD-88. >putting me on an MD-82 (one of the ugliest birds in the sky.) :-) > I'm hoping it >_is_ an MD-82 because on the DC-9-10 seating chart I looked at my seat is >in the extreme rear, noise central and the MD-82 should be longer, meaning >I'm farther from the engine and less likely to be deafened!! If I were you, I'd get my earplugs ready. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk (Martin) Subject: Airbus Gust-Load Alleviation systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Staffs University, UK Reply-To: m.fiddler@bsmail.staffs.ac.uk Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:35 Message-ID: Hi I remember attending a lecture on the A320 wing, and we were told that it, and the A330/A340 wing, incorporated gust-load alleviation systems. Assuming I remember/understood correctly: a g-force sensor senses that excessive turbulence is causing too much stress on the wing. The high loading is at the bottom of the drop, when the wings have to take the inertial load of containing the downward momentum of the fuselage when it stopps dropping and re-starts normal flying. The GLA works by immediatly opening the wing spoilers/(lift dumpers?), reducing the sudden load on the wing and bringing the maximum bending moment on the wing down to a lower level. The guy said it works well (in reducing max bending moment) but the passengers percieve that the turbulence is worse than it is, due to the wing's reduction in lift during the downwards phase. So, is there such a system as I have described? Does it work like I described it? Is it's complexity worthwhile - considering the highly optimised airbus wing that may well need protecting from high bending moment, and the availability of the SEC computers it may be a good system? Martin -- m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk Phone: 0976 382655 http://www.staffs.ac.uk/sands/engs/staff/mf/mfiddler.htm From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Jet Engine Containment Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:35 Message-ID: What degree of containment in the event of a burst fan, compressor or turbine disk is supposed to be provided by a jet engine housing or nacelle? I seem to recall reading that some engines used kevlar to help armor the shroud. Is this a new requirement? thank you in anticipation Peter Wezeman From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: paulp@standardaero.ca (Paul Picton) Subject: Re: Canadian Arlines Flight Forced Landing? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Standard Aero Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:35 Message-ID: In article Joe Wilson wrote: > Does anyone have information on a Canadian Airlines Flight Enroute > from Vancouver to Ottawa that was forced to land becuase of a cracked > Winshield and Engine problems due to a hailstorm? A particularly nasty hailstorm sprung up in Eastern Sask and SouthWest Manitoba. The subject aircraft flew through the hailstrom where golf ball size hail pummelled the aircraft. From the articles in the Winnipeg Free Press, the storm was unexpected which accounted for the pilot flying through it. The plane landed safely and was flown to VCR for service and returned to service two days later. No injuries were reported. Paul Picton, P.Eng. Repair Engineer Standard Aero Ltd. paulp@standardaero.ca http://www.mts.net/~paulp From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rparpatt@pop.uniserve.com (Thundercraft) Subject: Re: Canadian Arlines Flight Forced Landing? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: UNIServe Online Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:36 Message-ID: In article , jwilson@ott.hookup.net says... > > Does anyone have information on a Canadian Airlines Flight Enroute >from Vancouver to Ottawa that was forced to land becuase of a cracked >Winshield and Engine problems due to a hailstorm? Believe that it is now back in Vancouver for extensive repairs. Captain's main windscreen was cracked up pretty bad. Dents in the leading edges of wings, horizontal stabs., and tail. Paint took a beating in the nose area. The a/c had run into a sudden hail storm near Winnepeg with reported hail stones the size of golf balls. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Brad Gillies" Subject: Re: getting hit by lightning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:36 Message-ID: This Spring we had an A320 struck by lightning. We found no less than 18 impact marks most of which were around .025 in diameter and ran the length of the upper fuselage. Most of the impacts went clean through the skin of the aircraft. The pilot reported no abnormalities in the electrical system at all and the post flight report showed no failure messages. -- Brad GIllies Bradg@io.org PPASEL AME (CANADA) A&P HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Mark A. Brown" Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:36 Message-ID: > I have been reading over the old archived posting of this news group > (many thanks to you, moderator!) and have come across a large number > of postings regarding accidents or near accidents involving automation > in the "glass cockpit" aircraft. A recurring theme seems to be the > pilot fighting the computer control system in an attempt to regain > manual control of the aircraft in an emergency. I'm not sure what you mean by "fighting the computer control system". Could you give some more specific examples, or do you have something like the following in mind. - Nagoya crash - primary reason for the crash appears to be that pilots triggered TOGA and then tried to override the autopilot's pitch up commands without disconnecting it. - This was with an older-generation Airbus aircraft which is not, I believe, a glass-cockpit type. You don't have to be in a glass cockpit to encounter automation problems. If you punch the A/P disconnect button you should get three-axis manual control back, glass cockpit or no, FBW or no. (Autothrust disconnect on the A320 etc. is a little more difficult because you have to move the thrust levers to synchronise the demanded thrust markers with the current thrust levels before you push the tit, otherwise you get a thrust demand change on disconnect, but again, if you disconnect, you get thrust control back.) BTW, "total" throttle control is a misnomer -- the pilot already has more limited authority of the engines due to FADEC. The more sinister problem with cockpit automation is _not_ the fact that pilot authority may be limited at the extremes of the flight envelope, but the fact that sometimes the pilot is not aware of the current mode of the autoflight systems, and the ramifications of being in a particular mode. Further, the computer's logic can sometimes be non-obvious and non-intuitive. For example, when you pulled the lever for ground spoiler on non-automated aircraft, then you got spoilers (perhaps gated by the weight-on-wheels or undercarriage compression sensor). Nowadays, the logic tends to be more tortuous, with factors like weight-on-wheels and wheel spinup speed being taken into account, and the fact that the handle has been pulled is just an indication that the command has been issued, not an indication that it has been executed. Just a personal opinion, but another worry is that over-reliance on automation may be leading to a loss of basic airmanship. IMHO, poor airmanship was displayed at the Mulhouse/Strasbourg accident (the pilot made a low, slow pass with his engines at flight idle over an airfield at below the height of obstacles in front of him), the Bangalore crash (pilots were slow to recognise the situation, slow to take control) and the Strasbourg/La Bloss Hill accident (pilots didn't monitor the situation sufficiently to realise that 3300 fpm descent rate had been selected instead of 3.3 degree flight path. The rate of descent on the VSI alone should have been enough to indicate something amiss). It is difficult to ascribe blame, with other factors -- please note that these are just my opinions. > I realize that some exotic high-performance military aircraft achieve > superior performance by accepting inherent instability which is neatly > overcome by mandatory autopilot assistance, and that such aircraft may > indeed be totally unflyable by ordinary mortals without such > continuous assistance. I find it beyond belief that newly designed > airliners of the past decade are unstable, other than to Dutch Roll > and our old friend phugoid oscillations. They _aren't_ unstable per se, and even FBW airliners may be flown in "direct law" with just "signal by wire" and no computer scheduling. > I also realize that some tiny additional increment in safety may be > achieved by automatically preventing overstressing the airframe by a > ham-handed pilot, but surely this is the classic case of a solution > looking for a problem. I would have though that things like alpha protection, _when properly applied and where the pilot understands the logic of the system_, are a good asset, especially in manoeuvres like terrain avoidance and windshear, where aggressive control inputs are needed. Again, the problem is more one of mode awareness, especially in control law changes which are essentially transparent to the pilot. If you're going to have FBW, then a change in control laws to give envelope protection is basically a software hack, and is straightforward -- there is no additional hardware cost in implementation. > Another pet peeve is the required manual computer keyboard input of > such numeric values as rate of descent. Not all numerical values are entered on keyboard, or this would be clumsy indeed. When flying the aeroplane via the autopilot, there are knobs or dials on the mode control panel which control numerals in windows. You turn the knob and the number clicks up or down. For example, with heading, if you want to turn left 10 degrees, you turn the knob left until the desired heading appears in the window. > I have no objection to this, > especially as no really graceful substitute for such data entry comes > to mind. But surely it would add very little cost to provide a > computer voice confirmation of exactly what the pilot has actually > entered, not, of course, what he THOUGHT he was entering. Problems here are habituation -- just because you provide a voice, there's no guarantee that it would be listened to -- and workload -- a voice may be a distraction where you are working in a busy terminal airspace, being vectored by ATC, descending and losing speed. A system employed by some airlines at the moment is to use the other person in the cockpit to confirm the value you've entered. The pilot not flying can make sure that you've put in the correct value, whereas a voice just repeats back what you've entered and does no "sanity check". Just my humble opinions. Mark. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:36 Message-ID: In article , johnmhunt@ipa.net (John M. Hunt) wrote: > I have been reading over the old archived posting of this news group > (many thanks to you, moderator!) and have come across a large number > of postings regarding accidents or near accidents involving automation > in the "glass cockpit" aircraft. A recurring theme seems to be the > pilot fighting the computer control system in an attempt to regain > manual control of the aircraft in an emergency. > > I cannot imagine any reason why total control of the aircraft on all > three axes and total throttle control cannot be trusted to the pilot > the instant he deems it desirable.... > It is inconceivable that todays pilots with their excellent simulator > training are not at least equal to pilots of an earlier era. If this > is indeed so, why the reluctance to simply trust the pilot to fly the > aircraft manually? I don't think aircraft automation is the result of a distrust of the flight crew but instead is an attempt to make it easier for the flight crews to operate what are becoming extremely complex machines. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to expect a flight crew to monitor and operate the hundreds of systems on today's airplanes. Automation has the advantage of being able to react faster than a person to many situations, and to react predictably. How many of us have pointed left when we meant to point right, or grabbed the wrong item off a desk when we were in a big hurry? Cockpit automation can help keep those kinds of human reactions from becoming irreversible mistakes, especially when the plane is low and has no room to recover from a human error. On the other hand, as has been discussed at great length in these newsgroups before, automation alone isn't the complete answer. The goal is to give the pilots the automation they need to ensure the most efficient and reliable operation of the airplane, yet still give them the ability to use their own judgement when needed. A computer (so far) can't anticipate every single variable that can affect an airplane. Computers (so far) can only react to something, they can't anticipate something. People can, so none of today's planes take the control completely away from the pilots. There are two major philosophies about how much control you give a pilot under some circumstances. Boeing follows one philosophy and Airbus follows the other. Both of them work, and whether you prefer one over the other depends on your view of automation. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rob Tremblay Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Bell Global Solutions Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:37 Message-ID: johnmhunt@ipa.net (John M. Hunt) wrote: > I cannot imagine any reason why total control of the aircraft on all > three axes and total throttle control cannot be trusted to the pilot > the instant he deems it desirable. I agree it would be desirable to > provide continuous trim control during autopilot operation to avoid > relinquishing control to the pilot in a seriously out-of-trim > condition, and am willing to make an exception for keeping the yaw > damper operative unless the pilot takes some simple specified overt > action to insist on rudder control independent of yaw control > assistance, but surely this is very easy and non-confusing to > implement. At least on the A320, "total control" (as you call it) is available at any time with two autoflight/autothrust disconnect buttons. The autopilot is disconnected with a red button on the sidestick, and the autothrust with a red button on the thrust levers. There are also a few other ways to disconnect said systems. As soon as the automatics are disconnected the pilot has conventional control of the aircraft- ie. Cessna 172 mode. All the protections are still in place, however. For example, if the pilot is handflying and lets the aircraft get too close to the stall, the engines will automatically accelerate to go-around mode- ie. max power. These protections are invisible to the pilot who is competant enough to keep the airplane in the normal envelope. There is no reason that I can think of why anyone would want to disconnect the built in protections. They are there for my protection- why would I deactivate them? Having said that, however, many of the protections can be disabled in different ways. If I really wanted to stall an Airbus, I could. As far as yaw authority is concerned- yaw damping is full time on all large aircraft, as far as I know. Once again, it could be disconnected- but for what reason? The yaw dampers provide stability- if for some reason I want to sideslip (x-wind landing), the yaw dampers do not fight this. Yaw damper authority can be overriden very easily. > It is inconceivable that todays pilots with their excellent simulator > training are not at least equal to pilots of an earlier era. If this > is indeed so, why the reluctance to simply trust the pilot to fly the > aircraft manually? Indeed, I have heard that Airbus now recommends that if the automation begins to overwhelm the pilot, the pilot should disconnect and handfly. The most complex computer on the Airbus is between the pilot's ears- nothing can touch the processing power of a human brain. The reluctance to fly manually is dependant on company training and indoctrination. If something needs to be done to alter a flight path rapidly (TCAS collision avoidance etc.), you can't beat handflying. > I realize that some exotic high-performance military aircraft achieve > superior performance by accepting inherent instability which is neatly > overcome by mandatory autopilot assistance, and that such aircraft may > indeed be totally unflyable by ordinary mortals without such > continuous assistance. I find it beyond belief that newly designed > airliners of the past decade are unstable, other than to Dutch Roll > and our old friend phugoid oscillations. Unfortunatly, I think you may suffer from what many others suffer from- comparing a civilian jetliner with a F-22. Two different airplanes, two different jobs. 9 G turns are simply not required in a civilian airliner. Large jets are designed to do 30 degree bank turns to final at 5 miles back- not exactly a manuever that an autopilot can't handle. > I also realize that some tiny additional increment in safety may be > achieved by automatically preventing overstressing the airframe by a > ham-handed pilot, but surely this is the classic case of a solution > looking for a problem. The Airbus has a safety feature that only allows a pilot to pull the maximum g-limit of the airplane- no more. Why would you want to overstress the airframe? Once again, we are not talking WW2 flak avoidance here- we are talking about getting passengers from point A to point B without a G-suit. > Another pet peeve is the required manual computer keyboard input of > such numeric values as rate of descent. I have no objection to this, > especially as no really graceful substitute for such data entry comes > to mind. But surely it would add very little cost to provide a > computer voice confirmation of exactly what the pilot has actually > entered, not, of course, what he THOUGHT he was entering.. Such a > service could even be provided selectively in languages other than > English to provide the greatest possible reassurance to a sizeable > portion of the world's airline pilots. It is awfully difficult to > imagine a scenario for such automated voice confirmation seriously > misleading the pilot in the event of partial and unidentified failure > of the voice feedback circuitry, since the pilot. if at all > suspicious, can easily verify the actual setting by existing numeric > displays. Rate of descent on the Airbus is not entered on a keyboard- it is done directly through the autopilot. An audible voice telling you what is going on would be totally distracting. Instead, a simple visual readout of what V/S has been selected is available on your PFD. Most of the time, V/S is not used. Instead, the airplane will calculate a perfect descent to meet altitude and speed constraints. It is really amazing to watch- especially if you have been flying an older analog airplane. It is still up to the pilot to intervene if the airplane is not doing what you want it to- this is basic airmanship. > Anyone have any thoughts in this area? > John M. Hunt > johnmhunt@ipa.net > I hope I helped you out, John. Remember- don't believe everything you hear. If you have a chance, ride up front on a "glass" airplane- you will find it most enlightning. Just because something is new does'nt mean it is better. However, we must face the fact that the new technology is here to stay. It is up to airline training depts. and airplane manufacturers to make it safe. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:37 Message-ID: Daan Vlaskamp asks on Mon Jul 22 10:11:29 1996:- > Never heard that story before. Do you have more information about this > "incident" ? Not about that one, but some time last year I posted an anecdote that I read in "Bravo Two Zero" (about the botched SAS operation behind the lines in the Gulf War). According to the author ("Andy McNab" - a nom-de-plume), who was in charge of the raid, after he and the other survivors were released from the Iraqi prison where they had been held, they were flown home in a B727. They were escorted by RAF fighters, horsing around all over the place in jubilation. To show the RAF exhibitionists what he could do, the captain of the 727 promptly executed a neat barrel roll. 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 Jul 29 02:29:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lestroyens@aol.com (LesTroyens) Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: lestroyens@aol.com (LesTroyens) Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:37 Message-ID: If I remember correctly, the crew was not charged with anything. After all, they had coped with a frightful emergency. The dive eased when they lowered the gear. Some slats were torn off. Oddly, or perhaps not oddly, the CVR was erased. ==================================== Have an eggroll, Mr. Goldstone From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:37 Message-ID: Daan Vlaskamp wrote: > > >The crew of a (TWA?) 727 was sort of "playing" with the flaps at cruise > >to milk out a little bit better fuel economy. They did a barrel roll > >before recovering, losing 10's of thousands of feet of altitude in the > >process. Not a boring flight at that point. The pilots were apparently "bootlegging". This involved throwing the circuit breakers for the slats and then running the flaps out to the first extension limit (Flaps 5?), while in cruise. This has the effect of lowering the aircraft's nose, which is reputed to lower the drag on a 727. Story I heard is that somehow the slat circuit breakers got reset, and the slats came out. The crew tried to retract them, but one stuck, causing the roll and later ripping off. The aircraft landed at Detroit Metro and after a thorough inspection, was returned to service. When Valsan was developing winglets for the 727, problems cropped up regarding the additional root bending moment produced by the change in wing spanwise loading. They got around this by rerigging the flaps, much like the "bootleg" setup. This shifted the lift distribution back inboards, curing the bending moment problem. Story I heard is that the rerig was also reduced the aircraft's drag a little bit too. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: steven tobey Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Flash-Net Internet Service Provider, 888-FLASHNET Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:38 Message-ID: Daan Vlaskamp wrote: > > >The crew of a (TWA?) 727 was sort of "playing" with the flaps at cruise > >to milk out a little bit better fuel economy. They did a barrel roll > >before recovering, losing 10's of thousands of feet of altitude in the > >process. Not a boring flight at that point. > > Never heard that story before. Do you have more information about this > "incident" ? The story is true although I can no longer vouch for the date and flight number of the TWA B727. I believe the event took place in the late '70s and from what little I remember the crew was manipulating the leading edge slats (by pulling the circuit breakers???) in an attempt to cruise at a higher altitude. This failed, the aircraft may have stalled, then rolled over and lost several thousand feet of altitude before recovering. During the recovery the landing gear was deployed to help slow the aircraft's descent damaging the gear doors. The aircraft made an emergency landing safely. IIRC the Captain's name was "Hoot" Gibson. Steve From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:38 Message-ID: >The crew of a (TWA?) 727 was sort of "playing" with the flaps at cruise >to milk out a little bit better fuel economy. They did a barrel roll >before recovering, losing 10's of thousands of feet of altitude in the >process. Not a boring flight at that point. I think that the crew was ACCUSED of misconfiguring the aircraft to get a little additional speed out of it, a scenerio which could have resulted in the manuver. Their story is that it was uncommanded, and that they WERE NOT in a misconfigured configured situation (at least one CB has to be pulled to use the 'go faster' configuration as I recall). So one likely explanation was that they were doing it, but no proof was ever produced (which is what the incident investigation concluded) or there was a problem with the airplane (which is the story of the flight crew). Cockpit voice recorder had rolled around, so the recording of the event had been overwritten. Can't remember what was reported to have come off of the flight data recorder. Sorry, can't remember anything more (like when ?). Would go look it up in our library, but we have to pay for searches (kind of transforms information in mere data). I DO remember reading several write-ups about this in Aviation Week and Spy Technology. Brian From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ian Kershaw Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Deaf & Hard of Hearing Services Reply-To: iandhhs@dhhs.org Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:38 Message-ID: There have been accusations that pilots have played with the flaps at altitude but this has been vehemently denied. There is at least one documented inflight problem that some attribute to such behaviour which suggested the crew popped the breakers to prevent the leading edge flps deploying as well as the main flaps. Regret I cannot recall the name of the book it was in. Tex Johnson, test pilot at Boeing rolled the prototype 707 over Seattle in from of asembled crowds watching the power boat races. The maneuver actually has the plane in a 1g state all the way round. Ian From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: egotrip@lesol1.dseg.ti.com (Mike Neus) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Texas Instruments Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:38 Message-ID: In article , wingedhoof@aol.com says... > >Karl says: >>There were some Stage III 727 proposals that involved replacing the >>#1 and #3 engines (with RR Tays, I think) while leaving the JT8D in >>the #2 position so as to avoid the significant expense of modifying >>the S-duct or its intake, but to my knowledge it's not been done. > >>I'd be very surprised to see any airline willing to operate a type >>with two different engines on the same airframe. The maintenance >>folks would be incredibly irritated by such a monster! > >This mod was offered by Valsan. It involved replacing the two outboard >engines with JT8D-200 series and hushkitting the center engine. The >thrust reverser was eliminated from the center engine in the process. >Several of these mods were sold. Delta may have been a customer. It >really improved performance. Valsan has since gotten out of this business >by selling it to someone else (sorry, can't remember who). Since many >airlines operate both 727s and MD-8X, the engine mix might not have been >too difficult to deal with. Hmmm, that brings up another interesting point. Arn't the center engines on DC-10/MD11 and LT-1011 aircraft different from the under wing engines? Ya, all three are probably made by the same company, but are they different none the less? From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:38 Message-ID: >Hmmm, that brings up another interesting point. Arn't the center engines on >DC-10/MD11 and LT-1011 aircraft different from the under wing engines? Ya, >all three are probably made by the same company, but are they different none >the less? They the same engine types, at least as delivered from the factory. -- 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 Jul 29 02:29:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:39 Message-ID: Steve Lacker (slacker@arlut.utexas.edu) wrote: : >Back to the JT8D, it's also on first generation 737s (-100 and -200) : >and the rare Dassault Mercure. I think some Caravelles had them : >instead of RR Avons, but my references don't support that. Maybe it : >was just a test. : At one time, I read that the JT8D was the most widely used single type of : turbofan in the world. The Saab Viggen also uses a version of the JT8D, with a specially designed afterburner added. It's called Volvo Flugmotor RM8B (ReactionMoter 8B). -- Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE* FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus- From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David K. Cornutt" Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Residential Engineering Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:39 Message-ID: In article Philippe DEPONDT, dep@ccr.jussieu.fr writes: >Unlikely. In the Airbus venture, I believe Dassault is only a sub-contractor >to Aerospatiale. >By the way, the Mercure was a flop since the only compagny ever to use it >was Air Inter. The last Mercure was removed from service last year. Was it that recently? I would have thought these would have been retired years ago. Then again, this is Air Inter we're talking about... According to my reference (_Modern Commercial Aircraft_, 1987 edition, Salamander Books), Dassault built 12 of these, with the first production unit (of 10) being delivered to Air Inter in 1974. One of the two prototype units was later brought up to production standard, making a total of 11 that went into service. You are correct in that Air Inter was the only airline that ever ordered them. The cabin is single-aisle; it looks to be a bit longer than the average 737. According to the book, a typical cabin layout had 12 first- class passengers seated 2/2, and 108 tourist seats configured 3/3 across the aisle. The range with max payload, cruising at Mach 0.78, was only 600 nautical miles, which is probably what kept Dassault from being able to sell them anywhere else. The book has a picture of one in action somewhere in France, flying over on ancient Roman viaduct spanning a river. Makes me wish I had a scanner. --- David K. Cornutt, Residentially Engineered, Huntsville, AL email: cornutt@hiwaay.net I'm a rocket scientist. Don't tell me what TV I must see. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David K. Cornutt" Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Residential Engineering Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:39 Message-ID: In article David Lednicer, dave@amiwest.com writes: > Yes, late model Caravelles (10B, 10R, 11R and 12) all had JT8Ds. >Approximately 60 of these models were built. _Modern Commercial Aircraft_ sez: 10A (also known as Horizon): GE CJ805-23C engines. No note on how many were built. 10B1R, or 10R: JT8D-1 or -7, 20 built. 10B3 (also known as Horizon B): JT8D-1, -7, or -9 engines, 22 built. 11R: A combi configuration with a forward cargo door. JT8D-7 engines. 6 built. 12 (also known as Super Caravelle): JT8D-9 engines. 12 built. All earlier versions used RR Avon engines. The Caravelle had a remarkable production history. The first version went into service in May 1959, and the last Caravelle rolled off the line in March 1973. A total of 282 were built. 33 different airlines ordered Caravelles, and my reference estimates that over 85 airlines operated at least one Caravelle at one time or another. --- David K. Cornutt, Residentially Engineered, Huntsville, AL email: cornutt@hiwaay.net I'm a rocket scientist. Don't tell me what TV I must see. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David K. Cornutt" Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Residential Engineering Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:39 Message-ID: In article Karl Swartz, kls@ohare.Chicago.COM writes: >I'd be very surprised to see any airline willing to operate a type >with two different engines on the same airframe. The maintenance >folks would be incredibly irritated by such a monster! I have a reference that mentions that one version of the De Havilland Trident was built with two different types of engines. (The Trident was a three-engined plane configured the same as a 727.) Apparently, De Havilland wanted to create a version with higher takeoff weights, so they took the Trident Three, which used RR Spey engines, and perched a fourth "booster" engine on top of the center engine, drawing air from a takeoff on the S-tunnel. The fourth engine was an RR engine called the RB162; it was a 5,250 lb. thrust engine. (I'm guessing that it was a small military engine.) Apparently, it was only used for takeoff, and was shut down after reaching altitude. If I'm reading the book right (it's a little confusing), this was called the Super Trident 3B, and only two were ordered, both by CAAC. There is a picture of one in flight. The tail looks like the rear of a late-'50s Cadillac. --- David K. Cornutt, Residentially Engineered, Huntsville, AL email: cornutt@hiwaay.net I'm a rocket scientist. Don't tell me what TV I must see. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: daniel lance herrick Subject: Re: interesting landing - runway switch at 800ft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Allen-Bradley Company Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:39 Message-ID: Doug Snow (HUF) wrote: > > At least here in the states, it depends on the distance between the > runways. At airports like SFO where there is a very narrow distance > between the runways, the sidestep landing minimums are pretty low (if > sidestep is allowed at all at SFO, dont know just an example). Most > sidestep minimums arent much higher than normal circling minimums. I suspect they are higher at SFO. I once spent a week in a hotel there where I could go up on the roof and be between and ABOVE the approach paths for the two runways. I spent quite a bit of time on the roof just watching the planes come in. Below me. dan dlh@dlh.com From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: xuserid@infinex.com Subject: Re: interesting landing - runway switch at 800ft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Infinex Telecom Inc. Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:40 Message-ID: Sidesteps are allowed but only with approval from the ATC. I assumed that's what you meant. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: interesting landing - runway switch at 800ft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:40 Message-ID: In article , "Doug Snow (HUF)" wrote: >At least here in the states, it depends on the distance between the >runways. At airports like SFO where there is a very narrow distance >between the runways, the sidestep landing minimums are pretty low (if >sidestep is allowed at all at SFO, dont know just an example). Most >sidestep minimums arent much higher than normal circling minimums. You obviously meant "lower" than circling minimums, not "higher". Sidesteps are in between straight-in and circles. For SFO, the ILS Rwy 28R has a straight-in decision altitude of 211', side-step to 28L minimum descent altitude (MDA) is 460' (which is also the straight-in localizer-only/glide slope out minimum for 28R), and circling MDA's are 740' to 1260' depending on approach speed. Also keep in mind that these are the minimums for the instrument approach. If a visual approach is assigned, a side-step is always legal (because technically you aren't side-stepping, you're just doing a visual to the other runway). Also if no side-step minimums are published, circling minimums apply for a side-step. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: interesting landing - runway switch at 800ft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:40 Message-ID: On 22 Jul 1996, Doug Snow (HUF) wrote: [Snip] > Somewhere on the web an airline driver has a TERPS page, and I think he > has a discussion of some of the differences. Check out: http://www.terps.com/ Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wohlers@hdz-ima.rwth-aachen.de (Wolfgang Wohlers) Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: RWTH -Aachen / Rechnerbetrieb Informatik Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:40 Message-ID: Hallo JVRusso ! >Actually, bypass ratio is a measure of airflow, not thrust. Exactly, it is the ratio of mass flow of air in the two parts. But if you want to know about the thrust you look at the mass flow and multiply it with the change in velocity. F = ( dm / dt ) * delta v Now I said that, if the delta v is the same for both, the thrust ratio equals the bypass ratio. Of course the delta v is not the same for the two parts, but it is good enough for an estimate. Gruss Wolfgang From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Graham Glen Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Ain't nobody here but us chickens Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:40 Message-ID: In article , Don Stokes writes >Graham@irving.demon.co.uk writes: >>Just for the sake of completeness, Comets started life with DH Goblin >>engines. > >Huh? At least by the time of the Comet 1 crashes, Comet 1s had de >Havilland Ghost engines (although the airlines wanted the more powerful >RR engines). Your quite right, I'm sorry I was going from memory rather than checking. Series 1 & 2S Comets had Ghosts. >I don't believe the preferred engies were Conways -- they didn't turn up >until the 707 era. The RR engines proposed for for the Comet 1 were pure >turbojets like the Ghosts; Conways are fans. >I'm not sure about the Comet 4; they may have had Conways. No, they had Avons as well. Mk 117 (7,300lb st) for the series 2 Comets, Mark 502 (10,000lb st) for series 3 and Mark 524 (10,500lb st) for series 4. (I did check this time!) Graham -- Graham Glen graham@irving.demon.co.uk ".. and it always was possible to measure the distance between so-called management and the so-called creative by the time it took for a memo to go in one direction and a half-brick to come back in the other." Dennis Potter From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: pandy@tcp.co.uk (Andrew Cameron) Subject: Re: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Total Connectivity Providers - Internet access for the UK Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:40 Message-ID: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > It's first flight was August 18, 1971, and it was delivered to >TWA on October 27. Boeing bought it back on December 15, 1975... > ........and the next day, TWA >bought the plane back from Boeing. (extract from original posting) My records from two UK sources suggest that this aircraft was sold to Boeing December 15, 1975 and that TWA bought again on 16th December, 1976, one year and a day later. This is supported by a quick calculation on the hours of the airframe against others in the TWA fleet - 87964 to 23rd January 1995, about 8000 hrs (2 years equivalent) behind c/n 19675 then at 96194 hours. I don't have any other evidence, but I had no interest in this 20 years ago. From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi (Timo Niroma) Subject: Re: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:41 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6 In article , Andy Tompson says: > >Karl Swartz wrote: >> One former NTSB official >> on this evening's news said it did NOT appear to be a bomb, in his >> opinion. I didn't catch the whole reasoning, unfortunately. >My understanding on this was that there were reports of a sequence of >happenings....some kind of initial fire (that looked like a flare), a >(cuts) >but do we need more speculation? I have got much post in my e-mail that think that the the theory of a meteorite strike is a real possibility. To those who have said that there would be clear trace after such a huge event, I would answer that the first trace may be very small. The possible meteorite can have been only one centimeter or one inch in diameter or even smaller. The point is that a meteorite has a speed a several tens of kilometers in second or several tens of miles in second. Think it. Compare with a bullet can do. And how slow it is. If the point of hit has been strategic, a one centimeter meteorite causing 15 centimeter wide a gap and tremendous heat, near is not much more needed. There is a tremendous explosion that could explode one of the motors or fuel channel. Thus the two explosions. Think the speed, that's the key. What news has come here to Finland, at least ten people have seen a flash outside the aeroplane before the aeroplane exploded. The other news that where in our newspapers was that the it was the other wing, not the cabin with the bags that got the first hit. So I answer we really need no more speculations, and I'm sure that the commission that tries to resolve this case does a good and accurate work. But as also has been said, one cannot see a thing that is not in his/her horizon. Let's not speculate, let's make hard investigation work, but let's take into account this one, albeit rare, but at the same time very real possibility. And I think there this time more than ever all reason to take it as a REAL possibility. Timo Niroma amateur astronomer From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:41 Message-ID: Andy Tompson asks on Sun Jul 21 21:47:17 1996:- > I keep thinking about someone stuffing something in the landing > gear area while on the ground, but do we need more speculation? Perhaps not, but would someone care to comment on the following? 1. It couldn't have been a bomb with a timer, since the aircraft was delayed on the ground for an hour before take-off, and it would have exploded on the runway. 2. Exception to 1. is that a bomb with a timer was loaded at Athens, but with a *very* long time set to detonation. Again, that means that the attacker either did not care when it blew up, or set the timer for the mid-ocean cruise, and the delay meant that it exploded a few minutes after take-off. 3. If a bomb with a barometric detonator was loaded at New York, why did it not explode before 13,000 odd feet, if it was in a baggage hold maintained at the same pressure as the cabin, i.e., equivalent to 5,000 feet altitude? 4. If it was a bomb, that (IMHO) leaves us with a barometrically detonated device stuffed into the landing gear or attached somewhere outside the pressurised cabin/baggage hold at NY (or perhaps a device detonated by radio signal?). 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 Jul 29 02:29:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:41 Message-ID: >3. If a bomb with a barometric detonator was loaded at New York, > why did it not explode before 13,000 odd feet, if it was in a > baggage hold maintained at the same pressure as the cabin, > i.e., equivalent to 5,000 feet altitude? Cabins are not pressurized to 5,000 feet equivalent -- it's closer to 8,000. Also, pressurization doesn't just kick in and hold steady at the desired altitude, so a device set to trigger at, say, 6,000 ft might not trip until the aircraft reaches 13,000+ ft, with the cabin altitude gradually increasing to that point. -- 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 Jul 29 02:29:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hansj@algonet.se (Hans Jakobsson) Subject: TWA 747 N93119 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AlgoNet Public Access Node, Stockholm Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:41 Message-ID: Anybody knowing whether N93119 was wearing the new or the old livery? HJ ============================== Hans Jakobsson Worldwide Airliner Historian Tel/fax +46 523 103 16 e-mail hansj@algonet.se From kls Mon Jul 29 02:29:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TWA 747 N93119 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:41 Message-ID: >Anybody knowing whether N93119 was wearing the new or the old livery? Some of the debris I saw photos of appeared to be painted in the older red and white scheme. -- 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 Jul 29 02:29:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Date: 29 Jul 96 02:29:41 Message-ID: Rudi Vavra (flying@ozemail.com.au) wrote: : Aaah, yes, but again, you are analysing this with the benefit of : hindsight. Spatial disorientation is a very powerful and deceiving : sensation. The only way to combat it is to trust your instruments. : When your instruments don't agree, it's very hard to decide which : instruments to trust. : We are all human, and one of the human traits is to stick with your : convictions. Once the crew make a decision and elect to trust one set : of instruments, they will go with that decision even if all : subsequent events try to tell them that their decision was wrong. It : takes a clear analytical mind to evaluate these signs and break the : chain. There are plenty of examples of this "fixation", the flight : that went into the ground because the flight crew were trying to : figure out whether the front gear was down and locked, or whether the : green indication light was faulty. Even though the ground proximity : warning sounded some twelve seconds (from memory, don't quote me on : that) before impact, no one pulled back on the yoke, because the : whole crew was convinced they were flying at 2000 feet. They : convinced themselves that the GPW was faulty!!! (The power of : assumption.) In the mid-thirties a DC3 captain on a United flight from San Francisco to Los Angeles flying on instruments took the wrong turn at an intersection and flew out to sea, convincing himself, his copilot and the dispatcher that both his compass, radio compass and radio range receiver were all wrong. It was not until another dispatcher came on duty and managed to convince the captain that he should turn 180 degrees and all instruments would agree. He ran out of fuel and made a good belly landing close to the shore. He got everyone out through the cockpit windows, where everyone but the captain and one other were washed off the floating airplane and drowned. The plane was brough ashore with the cabin dry. For years after that all UAL pilots were required to report their magnetic compass headings at every radio checkpoint. -- Gerry From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds) Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:38 Message-ID: timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi (Timo Niroma) writes: >>A popular theory for the crash of TWA flight 800 seems to be that it >>was shot down using a missile (a Stinger?) from a hand-held launcher, I think simple logic favors the sea-launched missile theory. For one thing, if you were going to plant a bomb on a plane, you'd set it to go off several hours into the flight. Otherwise, delays on the ground could result in your bomb going off on the runway. The fact that Flight 800 was attacked just after takeoff, over the water, strongly points to a ship-launched SAM. Ground launching from NY would be impossible. To densly populated. You'd be seen by someone. But a boat would provide the perfect platform for launching a missile. Even tho' investigators are leaning toward an on-board device, I vote for the missile theory... From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: wayneday@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen Day) Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The George Washington University, Washington DC Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:38 Message-ID: Bob Niland (rjn@csn.net) wrote: : The talking heads (I hesitate to to call them "reporters") are telling : us that the NTSB/FBI have a short list of three possible causes that : have not been ruled out (as of 7/26/96). The way they are worded : suggests that being struck by, say, a meterorite, has been ruled out. : Has it? If so, how? When someone crashes their car into a tree late at night and there's no indication of alcohol in the blood stream do the police instantly suspect murder? No. They start with the most likely causes, such as someone falling asleep at the wheel. When conducting an accident investigation, one does not start with an infinite list of possibilities and then proceed to check them off. One starts with the most likely possibilities, based upon previous experience. That is one reason why catastrophic failure has not been ruled out, but is considered unlikely--such a totally sudden catastrophic failure has never been experienced with the 747 before, so it seems unlikely. Bombs, however, have indeed caused totally sudden catastrophic events on airplanes, including 747s--so it is therefore at the top of the list. This is basic logic. D-Day -- "Macintosh: The Power to Save the World." From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jnedzel@netcom.com (Jared Nedzel) Subject: Re: TWA 747 crash - flight 800 (JFK-CDG) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:39 Message-ID: In article Pete Mellor writes: >Andy Tompson asks on Sun Jul 21 21:47:17 1996:- > >> I keep thinking about someone stuffing something in the landing >> gear area while on the ground, but do we need more speculation? > >Perhaps not, but would someone care to comment on the following? > >1. It couldn't have been a bomb with a timer, since the aircraft > was delayed on the ground for an hour before take-off, and it > would have exploded on the runway. I must disagree. A bomb certainly could have been timed to go off about 1 hr., 15 min after scheduled takeoff. >2. Exception to 1. is that a bomb with a timer was loaded at Athens, > but with a *very* long time set to detonation. Again, that means > that the attacker either did not care when it blew up, or set > the timer for the mid-ocean cruise, and the delay meant that it > exploded a few minutes after take-off. I don't see why the bomb couldn't have been loaded at JFK. Security at most US airports seems quite lax to me. >3. If a bomb with a barometric detonator was loaded at New York, > why did it not explode before 13,000 odd feet, if it was in a > baggage hold maintained at the same pressure as the cabin, > i.e., equivalent to 5,000 feet altitude? Well, we don't know exactly how the cabin pressure changed on that particular flight. In addition, a bomb could have been fused with a combination of a barometric and timed fuse, i.e., after the cabin pressure reaches a certain altitude, a timer is started... >4. If it was a bomb, that (IMHO) leaves us with a barometrically > detonated device stuffed into the landing gear or attached > somewhere outside the pressurised cabin/baggage hold at NY > (or perhaps a device detonated by radio signal?). Obviously we're speculating rather wildly here, but I don't see anything here that would make me rule out a simple timer. -- 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 Jul 29 13:24:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:39 Message-ID: Evan McElravy wrote on Sun Jul 21 21:43:42 1996:- > Is there any "official" way to pronounce these planes? I always pronounce > them "seven-oh-seven, seven-thirty-seven, seven-forty-seven, etc., etc." > The only plane I use the Boeing method for is the 777, which is the > "triple-seven", or "seven-seven-seven" to me, because "seven-seventy-seven" > sounds dorky. Should I mend my ways? After having assumed for a long time that the 777 was "seven-seven-seven", since 747 is "seven-four-seven", etc., I am trying to mend my ways now that I have been specifically told by numerous people within Boeing and by people in the UK who have been involved in the 777 programme that *nobody* *ever* says *anything* other than "triple-seven". For Airbus, "320" is universally "three-twenty" (and similarly for the 330 and 340). In French, it's "trois cents vingt". In German ... ? 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 Jul 29 13:24:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael.F.Lechnar@Boeing.com Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: e Followup-To: e Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:39 Message-ID: In article McElravy writes: >This may sound like a really dumb question, but I like to be on top of >things. In the computer world, technical words have specific >pronunciations. No where is it written that 80486 is pronounced >"eighty-four-eighty-six." In the aviation world I wonder how you say the >names of the planes in the Boeing fleet? After 18 years of hearing the "Boeing Way" of pronunciation, "seven- four-seven", it sends me up the walls to hear CNN say "seven-fourty- seven". Interestingly, the 707 is not "seven-zero-seven" but "seven- oh-seven". Frequently we just drop the leading seven and just say "four-seven". Regarding the 777, if you listen to any official Boeing spokesman, you will usually hear "seven-seven-seven". I think most of us use "triple-seven" in everyday useage. Our local media generally uses the offical pronunciation as well. Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephane Manaranche Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: sct.fr Reply-To: gentech@worldnet.fr Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:39 Message-ID: McElravy wrote: > > This may sound like a really dumb question, but I like to be on top of > things. In the computer world, technical words have specific > pronunciations. No where is it written that 80486 is pronounced > "eighty-four-eighty-six." In the aviation world I wonder how you say the > names of the planes in the Boeing fleet? > I don't know if it could help, but in France, we say "Boeing sept cent quarante sept" (exact translation of "Boeing seven hundred and forty seven") and also "Boeing sept cent soixante dix-sept" (exact translation of "Boeing seven hundred and seventy seven") etc... :) From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: xuserid@infinex.com Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Infinex Telecom Inc. Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:39 Message-ID: Several pilots who I've spoken with don't even include the final digit, i.e. they would say Boeing seven-four or Boeing seven-six. However, air traffic controllers at SFO use the "seven-fifty-seven" pronunciation. I don't know who's right or wrong. From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rparpatt@pop.uniserve.com (Thundercraft) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: UNIServe Online Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:40 Message-ID: In article , cpa1@penn.com says... >This may sound like a really dumb question, but I like to be on top of >things. In the computer world, technical words have specific >pronunciations. No where is it written that 80486 is pronounced >"eighty-four-eighty-six." In the aviation world I wonder how you say the >names of the planes in the Boeing fleet? What ever sounds good to you is fine. Many people even drop the first seven and just say 'two-seven , three-seven, etc.' As in most things in this life, people are always looking for short cuts. From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:40 Message-ID: In article , McElravy wrote: > This may sound like a really dumb question, but I like to be on top of > things. In the computer world, technical words have specific > pronunciations. No where is it written that 80486 is pronounced > "eighty-four-eighty-six." In the aviation world I wonder how you say the > names of the planes in the Boeing fleet? The OFFICIAL pronunciation of our airplane family is: Seven-Oh-Seven, Seven-One-Seven, Seven-Two-Seven, Seven-Three-Seven, Seven-Four-Seven, Seven-Five-Seven, Seven-Six-Seven, Seven-Seven-Seven, and Seven-Eight-Seven (you all can speculate about that one for awhile). However, most of us say Triple-Seven instead of Seven-Seven-Seven. The other exception is the Seven-Seventeen, but that airplane (the KC-135) is amost never referred to by its Boeing designation. These are the correct pronunciations of the names, and we occasionallay have to have our people re-take something on a video if they get it wrong. Seven-fifty-seven is a no-no (to us, anyway). C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David K. Cornutt" Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Residential Engineering Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:40 Message-ID: In article McElravy, cpa1@penn.com writes: >Is there any "official" way to pronounce these planes? I always pronounce >them "seven-oh-seven, seven-thirty-seven, seven-forty-seven, etc., etc." >The only plane I use the Boeing method for is the 777, which is the >"triple-seven", or "seven-seven-seven" to me, because "seven-seventy-seven" >sounds dorky. Should I mend my ways? The way you describe is how the Boeing people that I know do it: "seven-twenty-seven", "seven-thirty-seven", etc. The exception is the 777 for which they prefer "seven-seven-seven". Also, I went through the Everett tour last year, and this is how they did it. Now: does anyone know how to pronounce "Boeing 314"? :-) --- David K. Cornutt, Residentially Engineered, Huntsville, AL email: cornutt@hiwaay.net I'm a rocket scientist. Don't tell me what TV I must see. From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: Boeing pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:40 Message-ID: In article , McElravy writes: >Is there any "official" way to pronounce these planes? I always pronounce >them "seven-oh-seven, seven-thirty-seven, seven-forty-seven, etc., etc." >The only plane I use the Boeing method for is the 777, which is the >"triple-seven", or "seven-seven-seven" to me, because "seven-seventy-seven" >sounds dorky. Should I mend my ways? To add to the dilemma, some airlines have different slang terms amongst the employees. Some say "seven-two" while others call it the "two-seven". I like the former, which I believe is more common. Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ************************ Props are for boats! ************************ From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: Michael Page Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Department of Mathematics, Monash University Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:40 Message-ID: RD Rick wrote: > > brumstik@interaccess.com (broomstick) writes: > > > >Southwest Airlines has never crashed either, after several decades of > >operation. It's the only American airline with no crashes. > > Lessee, there's also: > > America West > Frontier (the new one; maybe the old one too) > Reno Air > Midway (the new one; maybe the old one too) > Western Pacific > etc. Returning to the original posting, the difference may be here that QANTAS has been around for a long time and flown a lot of miles. It recently celebrated its *75th* anniversary. Compass in Australia never crashed either, but it only existed for about a year! I recall, though, that QANTAS's actual claim is that they have never lost a life through an accident *in the jet age*. I think they lost a small plane in the Snowy mountains in the 50s, or somesuch. Michael -- Michael Page ---------------------- Mailto:map@hal.maths.monash.edu.au Mathematics Department --------------- Phone/Fax: +61 3 9905 4486/3870 Monash University ---------------- ObMotto: Non carborundum illegitimi Australia ----------------- ObURL: http://www.maths.monash.edu.au/~map From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: andrewa@ozemail.com.au (Andrew Andersen) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Reply-To: andrewa@ozemail.com.au Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:41 Message-ID: QANTAS (no "U") have never lost one. Most Australians with any sense are proud of the airline's fine achievement. It is all the more remarkable when you remember that QF are the world's second-oldest airline (behind KLM). I think that makes it special. For the record, and ahead of the internet hounds, there were a number of incidents/accidents during World War II (esp in Papua New Guinea) involving Qantas aircrew flying charters and other services for the Royal Australian Air Force. These were not passenger services. A good insight into the "how and why" can be found in the official 75 year history by John Stackhouse ".. from the dawn of aviation THE QANTAS STORY 1920-1995" published by Focus Publishing, ISBN 1-875-359-23-0 Email me if you need additional publisher information. Andrew/. (not a shareholder or employee, just a satisfied frequent passenger...after all those trips across the Pacific I'm still here !) From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: b36780@aol.com (B367 80) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: b36780@aol.com (B367 80) Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:41 Message-ID: In brumstik@interaccess.com (broomstick) writes: >Southwest Airlines has never crashed either, after several decades of >operation. It's the only American airline with no crashes. Let's not forget American Trans Air. While a discount carrier it is often perceived as a start-up carrier in the recent media circus. In actuality ATA has an enviable safety record of 23 years without a single serious accident or fatality. Gary R Cieszynski B36780@aol.com From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.products,rec.aviation.soaring Path: bounce-back From: jas12@cus.cam.ac.uk (Julian Scarfe) Subject: Cheap, light transponder (was: Gliders and Radar) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Cambridge Followup-To: rec.aviation.products,rec.aviation.soaring Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:41 Message-ID: In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: > If that's the case, the only > solution would be to install a transponder on the glider... I seem to remember a line in an AOPA magazine (UK) some time ago that suggested that the CAA had investigated the possibility of a cheap, light transponder for use in aircraft such as gliders. Can anyone comment on the feasibility of such a device? What is the state of the art in SSR transponders? How much power does a transponder require? Could you run one on batteries? What limits its weight? Its cost? Is there ongoing work in this area? Julian Scarfe jas12@cus.cam.ac.uk From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:41 Message-ID: >> Of course the nut of the problem for Birgenair (pending the NTSB >> report ;-) is deciding which intstruments are right, and to what >> extent. My point was that in this case the decision criteria seemed >> straightforward: one instrument, the ASI, said "too fast", and >> another, the stick-shaker, said, "too slow". This impasse can be >> resolved through an instrument all pilots carry with them: "their >> ass strapped to the hardware", as someone else put it. At a given >> throttle setting and nose attitude, a B757 is not about to suddenly >> accelerate past its airframe speed limit. That eliminates "too >> fast" as a threat. "Too slow" can be taken care of by a moderate >> throttle setting/pitch, and then one can start worrying about which >> instrument(s) are wrong, and what one should do next. > >Aaah, but how do you know that your attitude indicator is not faulty? >What if the various attitude indicators on board also didn't agree? >See the problem? They have to identify which instruments they can >trust. Well there's three attitude indicators (ADI's), and there's no evidence that any of them were inoperative or showing erroneous information. Therefore, if all three are showing the same thing, and all other performance instruments agree (except one airspeed indicator), you can believe the ADI's. Stall warning is provided by angle of attack (AOA) vanes, whereas overspeed warning is provide by pitot input. I would think that the AOA vanes are more reliable. Also, there should have been two AOA indications along with the three airspeed indications, so determining which is defective is not impossible. Of course this is all Monday morning quarterbacking, and it's a lot easier to think of this in front of the computer than when the sh** is hitting the fan. However there's one thing they should have known without much contemplation. There is, at least in my airplane, a procedure for "Flight with Unreliable Airspeed". It involves, as someone wrote above, maintaining moderate power / pitch settings. Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ************************ Props are for boats! ************************ From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: The ATR72 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:41 Message-ID: In article , S.Catt@lancaster.ac.uk (Stephen Catt) writes: >>Last Friday we flew from Poznan to Warsaw on an ATR72 (twin >>engine turboprop) belonging to LOT, the Polish national airline. My >>question is - who makes this plane? It's not one I've come across before. Didn't the NTSB recently come out with it's ruling on the AMR Eagle ATR72 crash? Wasn't ATR castigated for not supplying information it had, regarding icing, in the certification process? Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ************************ Props are for boats! ************************ From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:42 Message-ID: > >>The answer to "why bother?" is specific fuel consumption. > > >I agree that SFC of turbo-compounds was astounding... but was that really > >the motivation?? > > Fuel cost isn't the only issue -- lower SFC with the same fuel > capacity means greater range. One of the goals of the DC-7 was to > be able to fly from New York to California non-stop, reliably, even > against strong winter headwinds. Never mind the expense of the fuel > burned, they needed the lower SFC to get the range yet still carry a > decent payload. Karl, I should have made that point, the DC7C was the first airplane to be able to cross the Atlantic non-stop westbound, and the engines were a big piece of that. One can get real nostalgic for cheap fuel, especially cheap avgas. :-) The turbo compunds and the R-4360's burned 115/145 octane (color coded purple,) not 100 octane, btw. Nowadays you can't get it and have to use 100, with substantial derating. -- Charlie Falke System Test Team Leader Pratt & Whitney Aircraft From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:42 Message-ID: > falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) wrote: > I agree that SFC of turbo-compounds was astounding... but was that really the > motivation?? After all, the TC's had to burn >>100 octane aviation gasoline, > while a turboprop could burn bargain-basement kerosene. On top of that, this > was the '50s and '60s, when fuel costs were less of a factor (although still > admittedly a large factor) in expense management. Add in the cost of > maintaining a turbo compound, and then it seems to me that even a pig of an > inefficient turboprop looks pretty good. The early gas turbines didn't have very high TBO's either. > Now, to hop to your side of the argument... I suppose its true that the > airlines would opt for the low SFC of the TC engines initially, then back down > *later* when maintenance problems actually begin to hit home. By then, jets > were taking over, and the turboprop finally made inroads in the US (principally > on the Electra). Exactly. > And since you mentioned it... why aren't we overrun with diesel engined > aircraft? Poor power-to-weight ratio? Yup. There were some German Diesel engined patrol seaplanes during WWII. There are some intrigueing turbodiesels running in R&D environments here and there. I think if product liability gets cleaned up the rest of the way, you might see a lot more work along those lines. -- Charlie Falke System Test Team Leader Pratt & Whitney Aircraft From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jveen@tincan.tincan.org (John van Veen) Subject: Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: In a previous article, tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) says: >Steve Lacker wrote: >>falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) wrote: > >>And since you mentioned it... why aren't we overrun with diesel engined >>aircraft? Poor power-to-weight ratio? > >Dr. Junkers in pre-war Germany was an advocate of the aircraft >diesel. The Jumo series 2-stroke opposed-piston turbo-diesels exhibited >excellent power (well over 1hp per cubic inch at altitude, >something that sea-level automotive power-plants have only recently >achieved), remarkable SFC and low-RF -emissions (important in those >pre-FM-transciever days). > >It would appear that interest in this configuration did not survive >the war. There are some folks here in Spokane, who were working on a three cylinder, air cooled diesel for air craft. I believe it has been flight tested but beyound that I know nothing. It was exhibited at the local fair one year. Nice looking! If there is any interest I will try to contact the developer. John From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.soaring Path: bounce-back From: Joe Curry Subject: Re: Gliders and Radar Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:42 Message-ID: In message faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > In article , ability@zetnet.co.uk > (Joe Curry) wrote: > no transponder code or anything. I suppose with the newer technology > that's in the centers today this wouldn't be as much of a problem, but if > they still drop signals moving less than 50 mph from the scopes, that > could make a glider invisible on radar. If that's the case, the only > solution would be to install a transponder on the glider. I received an email from ATC at a UK airport and it suggested that had a good arrangement with their local gliding club. What it meant of course was they had agreed to keep out of the way. I prefer the above solution from C. Marin. Faure. What would it cost to install anyway? -- ability@zetnet.co.uk _|_ Joe Curry --o--O--o-- >From the shadow of North Berwick Law in East Lothian,"Bonnie Scotland" Edinburgh Airport is the UK's fastest growing.Insist on flights to EDI. Museum of Flight.http://www.nms.ac.uk.Inventory includes the Comet 4c. From kls Mon Jul 29 13:24:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re[2]: Gliders and Radar Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 29 Jul 96 13:24:42 Message-ID: It is probably helpful to note that not all radar interrogates "primary" targets (skin paint) and those that do, don't all the time...depending on controller/facility preference and work load or policy. In the United States the FAA plans to phase out long range radar, which provides most of the primary coverage...and will depend on secondary radar (transponders) for service. This may make identification of gliders (non xpdr aircraft and some weather) interesting! From kls Tue Jul 30 01:33:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@netcom.com (Pete Coe) Subject: Causes and solutions for window crazing. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 30 Jul 96 01:33:00 Message-ID: Just back from my first flight in way too long. Thanks to my travel agent I managed to get a window seat, but ended up severely dissapointed because I could barely see out of the window. It was so badly scratched/crazed that it was more like looking out of frosted glass than a real window. My window was facing the sun for most of the journey, but when we turned for finals, I still had a very fuzzy view. It wasn't just my window either, all that I could see were equally fuzzy. All planes I travel on seem to have some level of scratches, but this was by far the worst I can remember. I was flying on a Delta 757 behind the wing, and the plane was apparently only 3 years old, so this level of abrasion seems extreme. I seem to recall that this crazing was blamed on volcanic ash, and the volcano blamed was the one that nearly downed a BA 747 a decade or so back. Now if that was the case, surely the ash would have settled out by now, or is this now an epidemic. I would like to think that part of the care and maintenance of a plane would be the polishing and/or replacement of fuzzy windows, but as they are not a safety item what is the reality? From kls Tue Jul 30 01:33:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Alan Wong Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Australian National University Date: 30 Jul 96 01:33:00 Message-ID: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) wrote: >Presumably the difference is in the fuselage -- what does the A3XX look >like compared to the 747-600? Is the A3XX double-decked? Or just very >wide? Or both? Does the -600 retain the basic 747 fuselage with a very >stretched upper deck, or can it be widened by a seat or three? Preliminary studies of A3XX suggest it would be double decked for the whole length with 10 abreast layout in lower deck and 8/9 (?) on upper. The 747-600 would be stretched in comparison to 747-400 (dunno if it includes upper deck), but would retain cross-section. >I've never seen shuttle busses used to load anything much bigger than a >737 -- airports that use them usually have bridges as well for loading >widebodies and use the busses to load smaller planes. To load a 747 >would take rather a lot of busses (even the large ones used at airports), >which doesn't scale too well -- not only in terms of passenger >inconvenience but in total turnaround time. Airlines don't make money out >of aircraft waiting on the ground. In Kai Tak (Hong Kong), buses are common for loading/unloading 747s. There just aren't enough parking bays at the terminal. They have specially built buses with drivers at both ends, lots of doors on all four sides and mostly standing room only for passengers. It probably takes about 3-4 of these to take all the passengers. Its not too bad when loading because passengers do arrive at the gate at the same time, but when deplaning, they have buses (oops, almost typed busses :-) ) waiting to collect passengers. Yes, it is inconvenient, but better than no service at all (since they can't fit any more planes at the terminal). As for turnaround time, the captain once remarked "because this plane will be here for several hours, we won't be parking at the terminal", so I'd imagine if the plane is in a hurry, it'll get a gate. This may be a commercial decision too, if the gate costs a lot more than the far away spot. The turnaround time could also be affected by the slots available. Alan. From kls Tue Jul 30 01:33:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 30 Jul 96 01:33:01 Message-ID: In article Rob Tremblay writes: >Unfortunatly, I think you may suffer from what many others suffer >from- comparing a civilian jetliner with a F-22. Two different >airplanes, two different jobs. 9 G turns are simply not required in >a civilian airliner. Large jets are designed to do 30 degree bank >turns to final at 5 miles back- not exactly a manuever that an >autopilot can't handle. With a fleet of aging aircraft and various types of new failure modes-- ranging from structural failure to partial control system failure to bombs--it is both foolhardy and idiotic to restrict pilot authority to merely what an autopilot can handle. There have been several incidents in which the crews have sustained high G's--in many cases, loadings far in excess of design limits were encountered. >> I also realize that some tiny additional increment in safety may be >> achieved by automatically preventing overstressing the airframe by a >> ham-handed pilot, but surely this is the classic case of a solution >> looking for a problem. > >The Airbus has a safety feature that only allows a pilot to pull the >maximum g-limit of the airplane- no more. What exactly is that limit? What the Feds say it should be? 25% more? The "limit" is a constant which some aerospace engineer decides is the limit. It may or may not have anything to do with the inherent properties of the structure: it may be influenced heavily by Legal; it may be influenced by marketing constraints. It may actually be a variable limit which can drift due to variations in the manufacturing process. The absolute limit cannot be established. Yet in real life, crews rarely come anywhere near that limit. When they do, it's usually because the shit has hit the fan and extreme measures are necessary to either control the airplane or create a crater in the ground. >Why would you want to >overstress the airframe? To save the lives of its passengers. Who cares if you land with a bent wing, if being allowed to *bend* the wing allows the recovery of the situation? Do you think the captain of that Aeroflot A310 cared how many G's he was pulling as he flew into the ground? >Once again, we are not talking WW2 flak >avoidance here- we are talking about getting passengers from point >A to point B without a G-suit. Which works fine if all you fly is a simulator. When you step into real life, which is replete with airlines using forklifts to attach engines, real- world weather, other airplanes to bump into, and, yes, the occasional nut with a bomb, it gets a tad more complicated. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Jul 30 01:33:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: 30 Jul 96 01:33:01 Message-ID: In article , Arnold@reedycreek.stanford.edu (Arnold Tang) writes: >Curious--any 747 pilots out there--if an asymmetrical reverser condition >on landing, what is the standard recovery procedure? Is it to mirror the >asymmetry by throttling only two engines, or by asymettrical throttling? I'm not sure about the 747's specific procedures. However, on most aircraft, the pilot would just retard all throttles to idle. There's not enough time to identify which engine is faulty, find the "mirror" engine, and then attempt to "cancel out" the asymmetry. Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ************************ Props are for boats! ************************ From kls Tue Jul 30 01:33:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Jul 96 01:33:01 Message-ID: In article Don Stokes (don@rata.vuw.ac.nz) wrote: > True, but that doesn't explain why the A3XX could be extended to 600-700 > pax when the 747-600 would be limited to 550 pax, as per Andrew Chuang's > claim. I'd better make myself clear, because I'm certainly not qualified to make the above claim. In my original post, I meant to say Boeing could not grow the B747 beyond the -600 without spending a lot of money. The B747-500X/600X program will cost significantly less than the A3XX-100/200. However, if Boeing is forced to develop a derivative or a new model to compete with the A3XX-200, then the cost advantage will no longer exist. Airbus felt that they could not leave the high-end market to Boeing alone. Then, my question is will Boeing feel comfortable leaving the over-600-seat market to Airbus? -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Q: Black Stripe, TWA Aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:39 Message-ID: On 26 Jul 1996, Jason Casey wrote: > Could be something to do with the fact that the Black area of the wing is > hotter, so birds don't stand on that bit when the plane is parked, and > then you don't get bird crap anywhere important ! > The black stripes are high-tech icing detectors. If the stripe is black, no ice. If the stripe is white, ice. It's virtually foolproof... Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:40 Message-ID: > The OFFICIAL pronunciation of our airplane family is: Seven-Oh-Seven, > Seven-One-Seven, Seven-Two-Seven, Seven-Three-Seven, Seven-Four-Seven, > Seven-Five-Seven, Seven-Six-Seven, Seven-Seven-Seven, and > Seven-Eight-Seven (you all can speculate about that one for awhile). > However, most of us say Triple-Seven instead of Seven-Seven-Seven. The > other exception is the Seven-Seventeen, but that airplane (the KC-135) is > amost never referred to by its Boeing designation. These are the correct > pronunciations of the names, and we occasionallay have to have our people > re-take something on a video if they get it wrong. Seven-fifty-seven is a > no-no (to us, anyway). But was it the seven-twenty, or the seven-two-oh? BTW, I'm writing this from a field office at Boeing field, and I don't think I've ever heard *anybody* say seven-seven-seven. But I *have* heard the abreviated seven-seven, as in four-seven and five-seven. What's in a name? :-) -- Charlie Falke System Test Team Leader Pratt & Whitney Aircraft From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Michael McEvilley Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Mitretek Systems Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:40 Message-ID: David K. Cornutt wrote: > Now: does anyone know how to pronounce "Boeing 314"? :-) Of course: Boeing Three...Seven times Two! :) -michael From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:40 Message-ID: In article faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > >The OFFICIAL pronunciation of our airplane family is: Seven-Oh-Seven, >Seven-One-Seven, Seven-Two-Seven, Seven-Three-Seven, Seven-Four-Seven, >Seven-Five-Seven, Seven-Six-Seven, Seven-Seven-Seven, and >Seven-Eight-Seven (you all can speculate about that one for awhile). What about Boeing's forgotten jet, the 720. Is that Seven-Twenty, Seven-Two-Zero or Seven-Two-Oh? Not that it's likely to come up in conversation often nowadays. Brian From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: alvinlaw@netcom.com (Alvin Law) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line services Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:40 Message-ID: In article Pete Mellor writes: > After having assumed for a long time that the 777 was "seven-seven-seven", > since 747 is "seven-four-seven", etc., I am trying to mend my ways now > that I have been specifically told by numerous people within Boeing and > by people in the UK who have been involved in the 777 programme that > *nobody* *ever* says *anything* other than "triple-seven". United, perhaps the largest operator of 777s right now, calls it "seven-seven-seven" on its commercials and advertisements. From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Bosc Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:40 Message-ID: Stephane Manaranche writes: > I don't know if it could help, but in France, we say > "Boeing sept cent quarante sept" > (exact translation of "Boeing seven hundred and forty seven") or "sept quat' sept" ... (and "trois-vingt" (three-twenty), BTW). But not "sept sept sept", doesn't sound good. JF From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Artus_R@mediasoft.net (Richard Artus) Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NotMuch Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:40 Message-ID: In article , mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) wrote: > In article , > Arnold@reedycreek.stanford.edu (Arnold Tang) writes: > > >Curious--any 747 pilots out there--if an asymmetrical reverser condition > >on landing, what is the standard recovery procedure? Is it to mirror the > >asymmetry by throttling only two engines, or by asymettrical throttling? > > I'm not sure about the 747's specific procedures. However, on most > aircraft, the pilot would just retard all throttles to idle. There's not > enough time to identify which engine is faulty, find the "mirror" engine, > and then attempt to "cancel out" the asymmetry. I was on the 747 up until last winter. Sometimes we'd fly with one reverser disabled by maintenance. The log book would instruct us to use symetrical reverse on landing. Or as you said above, mirrored! On the 727 if a reverser failed on touch down I'd just use the other two that remained, however with a little less thrust then normal incase of adverse yawing caused by the asymmetry! Dick Artus From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:41 Message-ID: In article , MikeM727 writes >In article , >Arnold@reedycreek.stanford.edu (Arnold Tang) writes: > >>Curious--any 747 pilots out there--if an asymmetrical reverser condition >>on landing, what is the standard recovery procedure? Is it to mirror the >>asymmetry by throttling only two engines, or by asymettrical throttling? > >I'm not sure about the 747's specific procedures. However, on most >aircraft, the pilot would just retard all throttles to idle. There's not >enough time to identify which engine is faulty, find the "mirror" engine, >and then attempt to "cancel out" the asymmetry. Hi there; the procedure in British Airways is for the handling pilot to close the throttles upon landing, the non-handling pilot then selects reverse thrust. The Flight Engineer then ensures that all engine thrust reversers have deployed correctly. If the Flight Engineer doesn't say anything, the non-handling pilot then accelerates the engines in reverse thrust. If, however, any of the reversers do not deploy, or refuse to accelerate in reverse, the Flight Engineer calls 'Inboards only' or 'Outboards only', therefore ensuring that the aircraft benefits from symetrical reverse thrust. I'm not speaking on behalf of BA, just myself. -- Pete Finlay Boeing 747 S/E/O British Airways LGW From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: amch@iafrica.com Subject: Re: French 747 mishaps Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet Africa Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:41 Message-ID: The B747 Operations Manual has no procedures for assymetric reverse thrust on landing, however, I do believe that most carriers have a simple policy that the FE ensures (aids?) the pilot flying has symmetrical reverse on landing. This is certainly the case with South African Airways. Considering that the performance manuals do not take use of reverse thrust into account (only antiskid and auto speedbrake, moderate braking), logic dictates that if asymmetric reverse is encountered, the reverse thrust should be removed and deceleration caused by the wheel brakes only. Obviously there is nothing to stop the PF and FE from ascertaining which engine is faulty, and then useing reverse thrust on two symmetrical engines. Regards Anthony McHale From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Airbus Gust-Load Alleviation systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:41 Message-ID: Martin Fiddler asked: > So, is there such a system as I have described? Yes, quite definitely. The Load Alleviation Function (LAF) is performed by the Spoiler and Elevator Computers (SEC). The SECs (there are three of them) control the spoilers in all of their roles: assisting roll control, speed brakes, gust load alleviation, ground spoilers. > Does it work like I described it? I haven't trawled through the manuals for the aerodynamic aspects of LAF. My main interest is the Flight Control System. I would be interested to learn more about what goes on out there on the wings. > Is it's complexity worthwhile - I've often wondered! Certainly it must add to the workload and complexity of the SEC software. > - considering the highly optimised airbus wing that may well > need protecting from high bending moment, and the availability > of the SEC computers it may be a good system? I heard early on in the life of the A320 that weight had been saved in the design by "optimising" the wings. Later, someone (I forget who) contradicted this, and said that the A320 wing is perfectly "standard" in all aspects of design. Since you have been to a lecture on the wings, perhaps you could clear this one up for me? Cheers! 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 Wed Jul 31 12:29:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "BRAD GILLIES" Subject: Re: Airbus Gust-Load Alleviation systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internex Online (io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:41 Message-ID: Martin wrote in article ... > I remember attending a lecture on the A320 wing, and we were told that > it, and the A330/A340 wing, incorporated gust-load alleviation systems. > Assuming I remember/understood correctly: a g-force sensor senses that > excessive turbulence is causing too much stress on the wing. The high > loading is at the bottom of the drop, when the wings have to take the > inertial load of containing the downward momentum of the fuselage when it > stopps dropping and re-starts normal flying. The GLA works by immediatly > opening the wing spoilers/(lift dumpers?), reducing the sudden load on > the wing and bringing the maximum bending moment on the wing down to a > lower level. The guy said it works well (in reducing max bending moment) > but the passengers percieve that the turbulence is worse than it is, due > to the wing's reduction in lift during the downwards phase. > > So, is there such a system as I have described? The A320 does indeed have such a system. The LAF (Load Alleviation Function) Unloads the stresses on the wing by momentaraly deploying the Flight spoilers and deflects BOTH Ailerons upward. The function is so fast that it is hardly noticable. I do not think that it makes the turbulance feel any worse though. The function seems to work very well. Note: The L-1011-500 has used a similar system for many years it is really nothing new. -- Brad GIllies Bradg@io.org PPASEL AME (CANADA) A&P HTTP://www.io.org/~bradg From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:41 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:41 Message-ID: In article , ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) writes: > It is true that the >vortexes are worst during approach for a variety of reasons (high angle of >incidence?? higher flap settings??) Actually, the conventional wisdom is that greatest vortex strength occurs when the generating aircraft is: 1) Heavy 2) Clean 3) Slow Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ************************ Props are for boats! ************************ From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:42 Message-ID: In article , ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) writes: >Instead of using categories such as HEAVY / MEDIUM to decide whether an >aircraft should wait a little longer for departure, why not use a delta >weight to decide... eg if aircraft A is (say) 30% heavier than B, then B >should take the full 2 minute disipation time before takeoff, or get an >extra minute separation on approach? I think this would be impractical. Can you imagine the tower obtaining the weight of every arrival/departure and computing the weight differential between aircraft? Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ************************ Props are for boats! ************************ From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: msaitz@ping.at (Manfred Saitz) Subject: Re: B757 "Heavy Jet"? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Ping Reply-To: msaitz@ping.at Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:42 Message-ID: Hi, >>> At Heathrow tonight a Sabena 737 pilot got a right telling-off for >>> declining to take off close behind a 757. He was told that in the >>> UK 757s are not considered to be heavy and that 2 minute separation >>> was not necessary. The pilot in the aircraft behind the next 757 >> According to the Manual of Air Traffic Services Pt1 the B757 is still >> classified as a Medium in the UK. The only time it is treated > Further, the pilot, being a professional, had probably heard of > incidents in the US and decided to be cautious. Sounds good to me. Additionally he might be used to a 2 minute departure separation from his experience in Europe, as quite a few European countries - including my home country Austria - have adopted the US-regulation classifying the 757 as heavy. I heared once, that the British CAA has adopted a different rule mainly due to capacity-restraints at LHR, where movements of B757s account for quite a high percentage of the general number of movements. This reportedly was done after consultation with local British airlines, who of course are not interested in reducing the capacity at UK's most important airport. (Still testing undertaken by British CAA obviously didn't lead to the same results as in the study of US's FAA). Nice greetings from Vienna, Manfred, ATC/TWR/LOWW. Stating my personal views. -- Manfred Saitz msaitz@ping.at 08/01/96 00:53 --------- Using: OUI TE 1.5 from http://www.dvorak.com From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: jtalbot@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (jts) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: LMB Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:42 Message-ID: In article , don@rata.vuw.ac.nz says... > >In article , >Michael Leduc wrote: >>Don Stokes wrote: >>> Why is this? I thought Boeing was designing a new wing for the B747-500 >>> and -600, since the existing B747 wing is pretty much at its limits on >>> the -400. I would have thought that the aircraft could be stretched >>> further if the wing was up to the job. >>> >>> Experience says that if there's one thing Boeing knows best about >>> building jet transports it's getting the wing right. >> >>That may be true, but one must not extend the wing too much. The >>maximum wing span has just about been reached for commercial aircraft, >>for the time being. > >True, but that doesn't explain why the A3XX could be extended to 600-700 >pax when the 747-600 would be limited to 550 pax, as per Andrew Chuang's >claim. (I'm sure this has some justification, I just don't know what it >is.) My gut feeling is that Airbus don't know wings as well as Boeing; >certainly Aurbus wings _look_ a lot more conservative, with less >sweepback, and correspondingly lower speed (sweepback affects the >critical Mach number of the wing), so the issue isn't going to be getting >the wing to carry the beast, or if it is, the problem is going to affect >Airbus equally if not more so. > >Presumably the difference is in the fuselage -- what does the A3XX look >like compared to the 747-600? >Is the A3XX double-decked? yes. >Does the -600 retain the basic 747 fuselage with a very >stretched upper deck, or can it be widened by a seat or three? yes - standard ten abreast with fuselage plugs fore and aft of the wingbox. >> Extending the wing size would mean new airport >>terminal design for nose-in-gate positioning or parking the aircraft >>out on an apron and using shuttle busses. Recent article in Air Transport World (I think) suggests that the size restriction on new large aircraft may become unmanageable. The article referred to a recent study claiming that airport reworking for jets larger than 747 would require ~$150 million on average per airport. Conclusion was that Boeing and Airbus were just going to build larger jets and the airports would have to facilitate or be left out. >I've never seen shuttle busses used to load anything much bigger than a >737 -- airports that use them usually have bridges as well for loading >widebodies and use the busses to load smaller planes. To load a 747 >would take rather a lot of busses (even the large ones used at airports), >which doesn't scale too well -- not only in terms of passenger >inconvenience but in total turnaround time. Airlines don't make money out >of aircraft waiting on the ground. Dulles Int't in Wash DC uses large 100 pax buses to load/unload 747's. While it may seem slow, it only take 4-5 trips and for large airports, actually reduces the average transit time. Also, for int'l flights, the buses take you straight to Customs. Justin From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:42 Message-ID: > >Hmmm, that brings up another interesting point. Arn't the center engines on > >DC-10/MD11 and LT-1011 aircraft different from the under wing engines? Ya, > >all three are probably made by the same company, but are they different none > >the less? > > They the same engine types, at least as delivered from the factory. Our DC-10 and MD-11 engines are completely interchangeable wing to center. (The other guys' probably are as well, I'd guess.) They have a pin program to tell them when they're in the center, so the FADECs use different pressure probe correction curves. (This feature only for the MD-11's, the DC-10s had straight hydro controls.) Charlie Falke System Test Team Leader Pratt & Whitney Aircraft From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:42 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:42 Message-ID: On 29 Jul 1996, Karl Swartz wrote: > >Hmmm, that brings up another interesting point. Arn't the center engines on > >DC-10/MD11 and LT-1011 aircraft different from the under wing engines? Ya, > >all three are probably made by the same company, but are they different none > >the less? > > They [are] the same engine types, at least as delivered from the > factory. Some years ago, I was a cockpit crewmember on a transoceanic DC-10-30. Prior to departure, a scan of the maintenance logbook revealed that the GE CF6-50 from the center position had - apparenlty without specific authorization - been temporarily replaced with a different "dash" number engine (either a -60 or -70, as I recall). Since we had no performance charts specific to the latter, there ensued a mad scramble to determine whether such an intermix of engines was even *legal*. After several radio and telephone calls, and a considerable amount of discussion, we were provided with some new performance data for that engine (not *significantly* different from that of the -50), and were persuaded that it was indeed legal for us to depart on our flight. Normally, however, the dash numbers of the three engines on any given aircraft were the same. Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011 Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:43 Message-ID: >Arn't the center engines on DC-10/MD11 and LT-1011 aircraft different >from the under wing engines? Engines can be different in configuration based on what position they're installed on the airplane. For example on the L-1011, the number two engine has two hydraulic pumps, whereas the number 1 and 3 engines only have one hydraulic pump. Same applies to the 727 where nbr 3 engine doesn't have a hydraulic pump at all. So basically, the engines are the same, but are differently configured based on where they get hung on the airplane. From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Trident 3B Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:43 Message-ID: In article "David K. Cornutt" writes: >I have a reference that mentions that one version of the >De Havilland Trident was built with two different types of >engines. (The Trident was a three-engined plane configured >the same as a 727.) Apparently, De Havilland wanted to >create a version with higher takeoff weights, so they took >the Trident Three, which used RR Spey engines, and perched >a fourth "booster" engine on top of the center engine, >drawing air from a takeoff on the S-tunnel. The fourth >engine was an RR engine called the RB162; it was a >5,250 lb. thrust engine. (I'm guessing that it was a small >military engine.) Apparently, it was only used for takeoff, >and was shut down after reaching altitude. > >If I'm reading the book right (it's a little confusing), this >was called the Super Trident 3B, and only two were >ordered, both by CAAC. There is a picture of one in flight. >The tail looks like the rear of a late-'50s Cadillac. The Trident 3B was a stretched (140 pax) version of the Trident 2, and 26 were built for British European Airways (BEA). BEA actually wanted to buy 727-200s but the UK government vetoed the purchase, and the Trident 3B was developed instead. All 3Bs had an RB162 booster in the tail, allowing an increase of 14,500 lbs mtow or shortening the takeoff roll by some 1800 ft. Two Super 3Bs (3B-104) with increased fuel capacity were delivered to CAAC China. CAAC also operated 33 Trident 2Es. Total production of all Trident models was just 117. A handful may still be in use by the Chinese Air Force. Brian From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:43 Message-ID: In falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) writes: > >Yup. There were some German Diesel engined patrol seaplanes during >WWII. There are some intrigueing turbodiesels running in R&D >environments here and there. I think if product liability gets >cleaned up the rest of the way, you might see a lot more work along >those lines. When I had Aircraft Engine shop in High School (1948-1950), we had a set of drawings of a radial diesel aircraft engine. Can't remember for certain, but I think the engine had been designed, and possibly built, by Packard. One of the instructors told us two of the engines had been mounted on either a Beech D-18 or a Lockheed Lodestar. Next time I get back to the school, I'll ask one of the "Aero" instructors if the drawings are still around and try to get some photos. Regards, Lou. From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Re: Jet Engine Containment Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:43 Message-ID: Kevlar wrap is provided around the fan case to contain fan blades. It is lighter in weight than armour plate but requires a clearance to allow for the elastic expansion/contraction of the Kevlar as it catches a blade. I know it is used on CF34-3A/B in Canadair RJ/Challenger and on BR710 in Gulfstream V/Global Express as well as on some variants of RB 211. Gerald Wilson From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:43 Message-ID: In article , Rob Tremblay writes: >The Airbus has a safety feature that only allows a pilot to pull the >maximum g-limit of the airplane- no more. Why would you want to >overstress the airframe? What if a situation arises where the only way out requires overstressing the airplane? This could be recovery from unusual attitudes, or evasive action to avoid traffic or terrain. There have been accidents where the the airframe was overstressed in order to recover. For certification, the airframe must withstand 150% of published G-limits without failure. Someday that extra 50% percent may be needed. From what I've read, Airbus FBW doesn't give you that option, even in direct law. I don't know about Boeing's FBW. Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727 ************************ Props are for boats! ************************ From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:43 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:43 Message-ID: C. Marin Faure writes in response to John M. Hunt :- > A computer (so far) can't > anticipate every single variable that can affect an airplane. After "so far" add "and almost certainly never". The anticipation is done by the designers of the system, and particularly the software designers. The software cannot be better than its specification, and no specification can define behaviour appropriate to all eventualities in the environment of the aircraft. 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 Wed Jul 31 12:29:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jan Klier Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:44 Message-ID: Rob Tremblay wrote: > There is no reason that I can think of why anyone would want > to disconnect the built in protections. They are there for my > protection- why would I deactivate them? Having said that, however, > many of the protections can be disabled in different ways. If I really > wanted to stall an Airbus, I could. In general I would agree with you. But being a software engineer, and knowing how many unforseen problems a computer can produce, it makes me feel terrible uncomfortable to think that the computer has the last word. It's just unpossible, no matter how cautious one is to predict all situations one can come in. And I think there is one example for such a situation, if my information is correct: The LH crash in Warsaw, involving an Airbus. The ATC controller had given wrong wind information and the pilots where coming in with the wrong configuration. As part of that, the pilots couldn't get the main landing gear on the ground in a fashion that the pressure-on-wheels protection would allow them to use the breaks. This in turn lead to loosing additional runway, which they were already short on. As far as I remember the facts, they pilots were aware of the problem, knew how to fix it but one of these safeguards prevented that from doing it - and that possibly, because of a software engineer not considering the possibility of ATC giving wrong information and other factors that might lead to a whole chain of events which the safeguards weren't prepared for. Now, that's only how far I remember the story from that incident. But independent of this, I can easily imagine an emergency situation where a safeguard might prevent a solution that a human being is perfectly able from executing and might therefore prevent a human being from preventing a disaster. And it's unpossible to predict all possible emergency situations a plane can get into - otherwise we wouldn't see new twists developing all the time. Just my $0.02 Jan -- The opinions expressed above are my own and have nothing to do with my employer ******************************************************************************* Jan Klier Software Design Engineer jank@gr.hp.com Hewlett Packard - Storage System Division, Greeley CO From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: McDonnell Douglas Blended Wing Transport Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:44 Message-ID: While visiting the model shop at NASA Langley Research Center recently, they were working on a wind tunnel model of a proposed McDD blended wing/body transport. When I asked about the scale of the model, they said it was designed to seat 800+ pax. If that's the case, then this thing will be about the size of a whole fleet of 747-400s (wingspan wise), and will have three engines each about the diameter of a 747 fuselage. Anyone know anything about this aircraft? It had a very manta ray type shape, and was quite asthetically pleasing. It reminded me of some of the early artist's conceptions of what a stealth bomber might look like (but didn't end up being correct in the end..). Just curious.. Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:44 Message-ID: In article , doug wakefield wrote: >Timo Niroma (timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi) wrote: >: point in my opinion to one direction: a meteorite. >: >: As NASA recently announced the amount of meteorites pouring into our >: atmosphere is grossly underestimated. > >Just an additional statistic, According to Author Ken Davis, the Chances >of getting in a car accident are 100 to one, in a plane accident 20 >thousand to one, being hit by a meteor 7 thousand to one. People do die >in plane crashes enough so people worry about flying, maybe the meteorite >idea should be taken a little more seriously. As far as I am aware, most if not all recent meteorite victims have lived to tell the tale. People do occasionally get hit by meteories, and what happens most of the time is that it hurts a bit. A meteorite of the 7000-to-one variety hits the ground at maybe 100mph, if that (what _is_ the terminal velocity of a small stone?), and at at temperature often below the boiling point of water (since the merotite ablates leaving the hot part in the atmosphere and the body of the rock fairly cool). A 7000-to-one meterite hitting an airliner will simply bounce off. It would have to be a several-million-to-one meteorite to have any chance of doing any damage. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:44 Message-ID: In article wayneday@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen Day) writes: >experience. That is one reason why catastrophic failure has not been >ruled out, but is considered unlikely--such a totally sudden catastrophic >failure has never been experienced with the 747 before, so it seems >unlikely. - JAL 747-SR aft bulkhead failure. - Iranian Imperial Air Force wing loss following lightning strike - El Al multiple catastrophic engine failure and subsequent damage causing severe control problems. I'm only familiar with three accidents in which bombings have caused a jet transport to crash: a TWA 707 over the Ionian Sea in the early 1970s; the Pan Am crash; the Air India 747 over the Atlantic which nobody talks about. There have many, many instances in which airplanes have been blown up on the ground in an act of petulance (once the media accomodates by setting up its cameras, of course :-)). Now, if the crash investigation starts to focus on its job rather than play media games, perhaps we'll eventually come up with an answer to *this* one. Does anyone else find it incomprehensible that, with the likelihood a bomber is on the loose, body recovery is being made the #1 priority of the investigation team, apparently in a concession to media pressure, opportun- istic politicians, and grieving victims' families? I originally got the impression this was for forensic reasons, but the combination of statements from the NTSB and third parties over the last two days seems to suggest that they're under extreme pressure to do it for humanitarian reasons. All I'll note is that if it happened once, it could happen again. The third parties should butt out and let the NTSB and FBI do their jobs, unfettered. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Wed Jul 31 12:29:44 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 31 Jul 96 12:29:44 Message-ID: Robert Dorsett writes: >>experience. That is one reason why catastrophic failure has not been >>ruled out, but is considered unlikely--such a totally sudden catastrophic >>failure has never been experienced with the 747 before, so it seems >>unlikely. >- JAL 747-SR aft bulkhead failure. >- Iranian Imperial Air Force wing loss following lightning strike Was this the one in 1976, near Madrid? (Coincidentally, one of the former TWA planes.) >- El Al multiple catastrophic engine failure and subsequent damage causing > severe control problems. If you're going to mention this one, you should also mention the similar China Air 747-200F crash in November 1993, not long after departure from Taipei. However, I think the key difference here is that none of these, with the possible exception of the Iranian Air Force accident, produced a sudden, catastrophic failure of the aircraft. The JAL plane flew for the better part of an hour after the initial failure, El Al flew for at least a few minutes, and I suspect China Air did as well, with some reporting from the pilots of what was going on. There was not the near-instantaneous failure evident in the case of TWA 800. -- 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 Aug 1 13:34:26 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing to Acquire Rockwell Aerospace and Defense Units Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 01 Aug 96 13:34:26 Message-ID: [Boeing Press Release] Boeing Significantly Enhances Position as Global Competitor in Key Defense and Aerospace Markets SEATTLE, Aug. 1, 1996 - The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) and Rockwell International Corporation (NYSE:ROK) announced today that they have signed a definitive agreement under which Boeing will acquire Rockwell's Aerospace and Defense businesses. In the merger, Boeing will issue approximately $860 million of its common stock and retain $2.165 billion of Rockwell debt and certain retiree obligations of Rockwell. Effective date is expected to be later this year. Immediately prior to the merger, Rockwell will transfer its Automation, Avionics, Communications, Semiconductor Systems and Automotive Components Systems businesses to a new company, which will keep the Rockwell name. Shares of the new Rockwell will be distributed to Rockwell shareowners just prior to the effectiveness of the merger on a one-for-one basis. The new Rockwell will be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The new name of the acquired units will be Boeing North American, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company. The Rockwell Aerospace and Defense units employ approximately 21,000. Boeing Defense & Space Group has approximately 30,000 employees. The transaction, which is intended to be tax free, is subject to approval by Rockwell's shareowners and debtholders, certain regulatory approvals and other provisions generally required in similar transactions. A special Rockwell shareowners' meeting will be held in November and the transaction is expected to be completed shortly thereafter. Phil Condit, Boeing president and chief executive officer, said, "The assets and capabilities we are acquiring are an extremely good strategic fit with our long-term objective of creating shareholder value. This merger accelerates us on our way to achieving our 20-year vision, which calls for Boeing to be a fully integrated aerospace company designing, producing and supporting commercial airplanes, defense systems, and defense and civil space systems. He noted the intent is to grow the business base and expand opportunities. Although there will be some efficiencies that will be identified by combining the organizations, Boeing expects minor employment impact. "My desire," Condit said, "is to absorb any necessary employment adjustments through normal attrition and by retraining employees to take advantage of new business or career opportunities within Boeing. Both of our organizations have records of strong performance and we expect to learn new best practices that will bring increased product value to our customers." Donald R. Beall, Rockwell's chairman and chief executive officer, said, "This is an historic step in the continuing transformation of Rockwell, which has been shifting strategic focus to higher growth commercial and international businesses, with a particular focus on electronics. The new Rockwell will be essentially debt free and well positioned for significant investments in our strong franchises in Automation, Semiconductor Systems, Avionics, Communications and Automotive Components Systems businesses, including internal development and both large and small acquisitions." Beall added, "Our Aerospace and Defense businesses, with their strong franchises, solid management, excellent technologies and outstanding employees, have made strong contributions to Rockwell's success through their world class performance. The benefits to those businesses, their customers and their employees of the alliance with Boeing are compelling. The complementary strengths of Boeing and our Aerospace and Defense businesses create a leading global competitor in this industry." The Rockwell units that Boeing will acquire are: Space Systems Division, Downey, California Rocketdyne Division, Canoga Park, California Autonetics & Missile Systems Division, Anaheim, California North American Aircraft Division, Seal Beach, California North American Aircraft Modification Division, Anaheim, California Collins International Service Company, Richardson, Texas Systems Development Center, Seal Beach, California Rockwell's 50 percent share of United Space Alliance, a joint venture with Lockheed Martin Corporation, Houston, Texas The major product groups of the acquired divisions are: ICBM systems; tactical missiles; sensors; B-1B bomber; commercial aerostructures; aircraft and helicopter modifications; rocket propulsion including the Space Shuttle main engine; Space Station electric power; airborne laser and electro-optics; Space Shuttle integration, logistics and operations; Global Positioning System satellites; space defense and advanced programs. The Boeing Defense & Space Group encompasses virtually all of the company's business with the U.S. Department of Defense, NASA and international defense customers. Defense and space programs include: helicopters, military aircraft, advanced electronic systems, space transportation and the International Space Station. The Group is organized into five divisions: Information & Electronic Systems, Missiles & Space, Helicopters, Military Airplanes and Product Support. The Boeing Defense & Space Group had 1995 sales of $5.6 billion. The acquired Rockwell units had 1995 sales of $3.2 billion. The new Boeing North American will report to Jerry King, president of the Boeing Defense & Space Group. Boeing North American will be headed by John McLuckey, who is currently president and chief operating officer of Rockwell's Aerospace and Defense businesses. King said, "The capabilities of the Boeing and Rockwell organizations are complementary, and the integration of our two organizations will strengthen Boeing as a prime contractor and make us an even more attractive teammate for joint venture opportunities. We will significantly enhance our capabilities in space systems, including space transportation, satellite and space station programs, and information/battle management systems. We also gain additional capabilities in the air vehicle area, where we will be an industry leader." The new Rockwell comprises: Rockwell Automation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Rockwell Avionics and Communications - Collins Commercial Avionics, Cedar Rapids, Iowa - Collins Avionics & Communications Division, Cedar Rapids, Iowa - Communications Systems Division, Richardson, Texas Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Newport Beach, California Rockwell Automotive, Troy, Michigan - Light Vehicle Systems - Heavy Vehicle Systems Boeing and Rockwell are establishing transition teams to develop plans for integrating the two companies' defense and aerospace businesses. Condit and Beall said, "We are committed to making the integration of these businesses as smooth as possible for the employees involved and our customers." The Boeing Company is the world's leading manufacturer of commercial jet aircraft and one of the nation's top exporters. Boeing had 1995 sales of $19.5 billion and projects 1996 sales of $22 billion not including the effect of the merger. The new Rockwell will be a global, diversified technology company holding leadership market positions in automation, avionics, communications, semiconductor systems, government communications and automotive component systems with projected sales of approximately $10 billion. CS First Boston is the financial advisor to Boeing and will act as its agent with respect to Rockwell debtholder approval. Morgan Stanley & Co. and Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. are financial advisors to Rockwell. -- 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 Aug 1 13:34:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tom Speer Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas Blended Wing Transport Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Date: 01 Aug 96 13:34:27 Message-ID: Jennings Heilig wrote: > > While visiting the model shop at NASA Langley Research Center recently, > they were working on a wind tunnel model of a proposed McDD blended > wing/body transport... > Anyone know anything about this aircraft?... Check out http://aero.stanford.edu/BWBProject.html. TS From kls Thu Aug 1 13:34:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas Blended Wing Transport Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 01 Aug 96 13:34:27 Message-ID: Jennings Heilig wrote: > > While visiting the model shop at NASA Langley Research Center recently, > they were working on a wind tunnel model of a proposed McDD blended > wing/body transport. When I asked about the scale of the model, they said > it was designed to seat 800+ pax. If that's the case, then this thing > will be about the size of a whole fleet of 747-400s (wingspan wise), and > will have three engines each about the diameter of a 747 fuselage. > > Anyone know anything about this aircraft? It had a very manta ray type > shape, and was quite asthetically pleasing. It reminded me of some of the Bob Liebeck at Douglas and John McMasters at Boeing got NASA contracts to do prelim designs of the "Airliners of the Future". Bob's design is the one you saw. John's is a wild multi turbofan amphib. There was some info published on it in the local AIAA newsletter. Both Bob and John are one-of-a-kind types with fertile imaginations. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Aug 1 13:34:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Date: 01 Aug 96 13:34:27 Message-ID: Louis A. Ramsay wrote: >Falke_Charlie phone dist ) writes: >> >>Yup. There were some German Diesel engined patrol seaplanes during >>WWII. There are some intrigueing turbodiesels running in R&D >>environments here and there. > When I had Aircraft Engine shop in High School (1948-1950), we had >a set of drawings of a radial diesel aircraft engine. Can't remember >for certain, but I think the engine had been designed, and possibly >built, by Packard. One of the instructors told us two of the engines >had been mounted on either a Beech D-18 or a Lockheed Lodestar. What made the Junkers Aircraft Diesels so unusual was the unique configuration : an opposed piston two-stroke turbo-supercharged diesel. Unlike a Subaru or VW auto engine, there were 2 pistons in each cylinder (driven from opposing sides via synchronized crankshafts). The 2-stroke design gives high specific power, the turbocharging increases that, and the opposed piston layout is benecficial for scavenging. They seemed a pet project of Junkers (who advocated the configuration as early as the teens), but werent all that common among short range planes in the WW-II timeframe. There were some more conventional aero-diesels made during the 1930's but non approached the power/wt and SFC of the Junkers motors. -tim From kls Thu Aug 1 13:34:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.railroad Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 01 Aug 96 13:34:27 Message-ID: [Please followup to *one* of sci.aeronautics.airliners or rec.railroad unless it really does apply to both groups. Thanks!] >What made the Junkers Aircraft Diesels so unusual was the unique >configuration : an opposed piston two-stroke turbo-supercharged >diesel. Unlike a Subaru or VW auto engine, there were 2 pistons >in each cylinder (driven from opposing sides via synchronized >crankshafts). Fascinating. Fairbanks-Morse (of Beloit, Wisconsin) built Diesel locomotives with similar engines, derived from their submarine engines. I was unaware of any other manufacturer having built an engine using the opposed-piston design. On (er, under) the water, Fairbanks-Morse did very, very well, powering the majority of the U.S. submarines in World War II. In the locomotive field they were less successful. Introduced in the early 1950s, their Trainmaster (H-24-66) was far more powerful than anything FM's competitors would offer for years to come, and their locomotives were generally respected as solid and reliable. The main problem was that when you *did* have to overhaul them or do heavy maintenance, it was a difficult and expensive job. Other locomotive Diesels can have a power assembly (cylinder, piston, and connecting rod) replaced individually, and I'd imagine the same is true of a aircraft radial. The design of the OP engine requires removal of one crankshaft to get into a cylinder. Beyond these and more minor maintenance problems, they were doomed by a small market share. Just as most airlines usually get rid of oddball fleets after mergers to reduce costs, FM's locomotives lost out in the long run. -- 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 Aug 1 13:34:27 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Leo Kok" Subject: Re: Airbus Gust-Load Alleviation systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 01 Aug 96 13:34:27 Message-ID: interesting side bar: In a paper presented at the International Committee on Aircraft Fatigue (ICAF) 1987 Ottawa Canada, Ian Gray from Bae Filton presented "Fatigue Crack Propagation Test Programme for the A320 Wing". Showed that the flight was more comfortable for the PAX, but the cracks grew faster with gust alleviation on over crack rates with gust alleviation off. If you don't get the gust overloads, you don't get the faigue life! mmm... -- Leo J.J. Kok Structures R&D Engineer, Structures Research & Development, de Havilland Inc. DOWNSVIEW, Ontario From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andre Berger Subject: Re: Delta ordering flex takeoffs for MD-88s? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:48 Message-ID: [This is a piece of private e-mail, posted here with kind permission of the author as I think it contains some excellent details. Karl] If Delta orders reduced thrust take offs on their jets in 1996, they are more than 15 years behind the rest of the industry. Poor PR. But let me clarify a few points: - Reduced thrust take off does NOT reduce fuel consumption. The TSFC (thrust specific fuel consumption) does not vary significantly between a full take off and derated take off. A take off and climb with reduced thrust on a B737 costs about 50kg fuel MORE than at full thrust. This is because *reduced* climb thrust is set in function of *reduced* take off thrust, keeping the aircraft longer at inefficient lower altitudes (higher TSFC in climb). - Reduced thrust take off SIGNIFICANTLY reduces engine wear and tear, especially on the newer big fan engines. On the CFM56 (B737, A320/A340) a single full thrust take off equals about 30 (thirty) reduced take off cycles regarding wear and tear on the engine (data from our engineering department). The difference on our JT8D-15A powered B737-200's is much smaller. - Reduced thrust take off makes MORE noise under the initial climb flight path and is definitely NOT a noise abatement procedure. On the contrary, a typical noise abatement departure is a FULL thrust take off followed by a thrust reduction to a VERY LOW value (well below max climb thrust) when over the microphones and resuming normal operations when well clear of these. The exact procedure depends on where the microphones are, but usually they are not at the departure end of the runway. Anyway, you would hardly hear the difference between a full or reduced thrust take off. - It is to the captain to decide to perform a reduced thrust take off or not. The day that company management makes that decision, I quit flying (BTW, I am a so called *management* pilot). - Reduced thrust is used for *Go Around* also. Not for noise, fuel economy or engine wear or tear reasons but simply because some birds are so overpowered that it becomes *dangerous* to put full thrust when the aircraft is lightly loaded. Ever flown a 737 with two 23.5K engines at 36T with full thrust? You simply will bust all altitudes below 5.000ft if you attempt to do so. In modern airliners, go around thrust is set i.f.o. a desired rate of climb. - Reduced thrust take off (if possible and not in all circumstances) is safer than a full take off because of the added safety factors (there is always excess thust, even with the *assumed temperature* calculation method). IN ADDITION, if an engine fails, you can still set full thrust on the operating engine(s). This is not a performance *requirement* but an option you have if need be. - The only problem area I see is the rejected take off. Reduced take off calculations do not increase safety margins in case of a decision to abort near V1. I think they should. Interesting that the Delta MD80 engine failure was uncontained. The things are -supposedly- certified so that this kind of engine failure remains inside the engine nacelle. Blades should not penetrate the cabin. Is this why the FAA remains silent about the issue? Kind regards, Andre Berger aberger@innet.be From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Rules on engine certification... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:51 Message-ID: ... relating to blade separation (from FAR 25 and FAR 33). As a bonus, I included the "bird" section. :-) The complete text of these sections is on: ftp://ftp.faa.gov/pub/files/avr/afs/fars/ =================================================== Sec. 25.571 Damage--tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure. (a) General. An evaluation of the strength, detail design, and fabrication must show that catastrophic failure due to fatigue, corrosion, or accidental damage, will be avoided throughout the operational life of the airplane. This evaluation must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, for each part of the structure which could contribute to a catastrophic failure (such as wing, empennage, control surfaces and their systems, the fuselage, engine mounting, landing gear, and their related primary attachments). Advisory Circular AC No. 25.571-1 contains guidance information relating to the requirements of this section (copies of the advisory circular may be obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Publications Section M443.1, Washington, D.C. 20590). For turbojet powered airplanes, those parts which could contribute to a catastrophic failure must also be evaluated under paragraph (d) of this section. In addition, the following apply: (1) Each evaluation required by this section must include-- (i) The typical loading spectra, temperatures, and humidities expected in service; (ii) The identification of principal structural elements and detail design points, the failure of which could cause catastrophic failure of the airplane; and (iii) An analysis, supported by test evidence, of the principal structural elements and detail design points identified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. (2) The service history of airplanes of similar structural design, taking due account of differences in operating conditions and procedures, may be used in the evaluations required by this section. (3) Based on the evaluations required by this section, inspections or other procedures must be established as necessary to prevent catastrophic failure, and must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instruction for Continued Airworthiness required by Sec. 25.1529. (b) Damage-tolerance evaluation. The evaluation must include a determination of the probable locations and modes of damage due to fatigue, corrosion, or accidental damage. The determination must be by analysis supported by test evidence and (if available) service experience. Damage at multiple sites due to prior fatigue exposure must be included where the design is such that this type of damage can be expected to occur. The evaluation must incorporate repeated load and static analyses supported by test evidence. The extent of damage for residual strength evaluation at any time within the operational life must be consistent with the initial detectability and subsequent growth under repeated loads. The residual strength evaluation must show that the remaining structure is able to withstand loads (considered as static ultimate loads) corresponding to the following conditions: (1) The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in Sec. 25.337 at VC and in Sec. 25.345. (2) The limit gust condition specified in Secs. 25.305(d), 25.341, and 25.351(b) at the specified speeds up to Vc, and in Sec. 25.345. (3) The limit rolling conditions specified in Sec. 25.349 and the limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in Secs. 25.367 and 25.427, at speeds up to VC. (4) The limit yaw maneuvering conditions specified in Sec. 25.351(a) at the specified speeds up to VC. (5) For pressurized cabins, the following conditions: (i) The normal operating differential pressure combined with the expected external aerodynamic pressures applied simultaneously with the flight loading conditions specified in paragraphs (b) (1) through (4) of this section, if they have a significant effect. (ii) The expected external aerodynamic pressures in 1 g flight combined with a cabin differential pressure equal to 1.1 times the normal operating differential pressure without any other load. (6) For landing gear and directly-affected airframe structure, the limit ground loading conditions specified in Secs. 25.473, 25.491, and 25.493. If significant changes in structural stiffness or geometry, or both, follow from a structural failure, or partial failure, the effect on damage tolerance must be further investigated. (c) Fatigue (safe-life) evaluation. Compliance with the damage-tolerance requirements of paragraph (b) of this section is not required if the applicant establishes that their application for particular structure is impractical. This structure must be shown by analysis, supported by test evidence, to be able to withstand the repeated loads of variable magnitude expected during its service life without detectable cracks. Appropriate safe- life scatter factors must be applied. (d) Sonic fatigue strength. It must be shown by analysis, supported by test evidence, or by the service history of airplanes of similar structural design and sonic excitation environment, that-- (1) Sonic fatigue cracks are not probable in any part of the flight structure subject to sonic excitation; or (2) Catastrophic failure caused by sonic cracks is not probable assuming that the loads prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section are applied to all areas affected by those cracks. (e) Damage-tolerance (discrete source) evaluation. The airplane must be capable of successfully completing a flight during which likely structural damage occurs as a result of-- (1) Impact with a 4-pound bird at Vc at sea level to 8,000 feet; (2) Uncontained fan blade impact; (3) Uncontained engine failure; or (4) Uncontained high energy rotating machinery failure. The damaged structure must be able to withstand the static loads (considered as ultimate loads) which are reasonably expected to occur on the flight. Dynamic effects on these static loads need not be considered. Corrective action to be taken by the pilot following the incident, such as limiting maneuvers, avoiding turbulence, and reducing speed, must be considered. If significant changes in structural stiffness or geometry, or both, follow from a structural failure or partial failure, the effect on damage tolerance must be further investigated. [Amdt. 25-45, 43 FR 46242, Oct. 5, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 25-54, 45 FR 60173, Sept. 11, 1980; Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29776, July 20, 1990] ***************************************************************************** Sec. 25.1461 Equipment containing high energy rotors. (a) Equipment containing high energy rotors must meet paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section. (b) High energy rotors contained in equipment must be able to withstand damage caused by malfunctions, vibration, abnormal speeds, and abnormal temperatures. In addition-- (1) Auxiliary rotor cases must be able to contain damage caused by the failure of high energy rotor blades; and (2) Equipment control devices, systems, and instrumentation must reasonably ensure that no operating limitations affecting the integrity of high energy rotors will be exceeded in service. (c) It must be shown by test that equipment containing high energy rotors can contain any failure of a high energy rotor that occurs at the highest speed obtainable with the normal speed control devices inoperative. (d) Equipment containing high energy rotors must be located where rotor failure will neither endanger the occupants nor adversely affect continued safe flight. [Amdt. 25-41, 42 FR 36971, July 18, 1977] Sec. 33.19 Durability. (a) Engine design and construction must minimize the development of an unsafe condition of the engine between overhaul periods. The design of the compressor and turbine rotor cases must provide for the containment of damage from rotor blade failure. Energy levels and trajectories of fragments resulting from rotor blade failure that lie outside the compressor and turbine rotor cases must be defined. (b) Each component of the propeller blade pitch control system which is a part of the engine type design must meet the requirements of Sec. 35.42 of this chapter. Sec. 33.75 Safety analysis. It must be shown by analysis that any probable malfunction or any probable single or multiple failure, or any probable improper operation of the engine will not cause the engine to-- (a) Catch fire; (b) Burst (release hazardous fragments through the engine case); (c) Generate loads greater than those ultimate loads specified in Sec. 33.23(a); or (d) Lose the capability of being shut down. [Amdt. 33-6, 39 FR 35467, Oct. 1, 1974, as amended by Amdt. 33-10, 49 FR 6852, Feb. 23, 1984] Sec. 33.77 Foreign object ingestion. (a) Ingestion of a 4-pound bird, under the conditions prescribed in paragraph (e) of this section, may not cause the engine to-- (1) Catch fire; (2) Burst (release hazardous fragments through the engine case); (3) Generate loads greater than those ultimate loads specified in Sec. 33.23(a); or (4) Lose the capability of being shut down. (b) Ingestion of 3-ounce birds or 1 1/2 -pound birds, under the conditions prescribed in paragraph (e) of this section, may not-- (1) Cause more than a sustained 25 percent power or thrust loss; (2) Require the engine to be shut down within 5 minutes from the time of ingestion; or (3) Result in a potentially hazardous condition. (c) Ingestion of water, ice, or hail, under the conditions prescribed in paragraph (e) of this section, may not cause a sustained power or thrust loss or require the engine to be shut down. It must be demonstrated that the engine can accelerate and decelerate safely while inducting a mixture of at least 4 percent water by weight of engine airflow following stabilized operation at both flight idle and takeoff power settings with at least a 4 percent water-to-air ratio. (d) For an engine that incorporates a protection device, compliance with this section need not be demonstrated with respect to foreign objects to be ingested under the conditions prescribed in paragraph (e) of this section if it is shown that-- (1) Such foreign objects are of a size that will not pass through the protective device; (2) The protective device will withstand the impact of the foreign objects; and (3) The foreign object, or objects, stopped by the protective device will not obstruct the flow of induction air into the engine with a resultant sustained reduction in power or thrust greater than those values required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. (e) Compliance with paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section must be shown by engine test under the following ingestion conditions: Foreign Speed of Engine object Test quantity foreign object operation Ingestion Birds: 3-ounce size One for each Liftoff speed Takeoff In rapid 50 square of typical sequence to inches of aircraft simulate a inlet area or flock fraction encounter thereof up to and aimed at a maximum of selected 16 birds. critical Three-ounce areas. bird ingestion not required if a 1 1/2 -pound bird will pass the inlet guide vanes into the rotor blades 1 1/2 -pound One for the Initial climb Takeoff In rapid size first 300 speed of sequence to square inches typical simulate a of inlet aircraft flock area, if it encounter can enter the and aimed at inlet, plus selected one for each critical additional areas. 600 square inches of inlet area or fraction thereof up to a maximum of 8 birds 4-pound size One, if it can Maximum climb Maximum cruise Aimed at enter the speed of critical inlet typical area. aircraft if the engine has inlet guide vanes Liftoff speed Takeoff Aimed at of typical critical aircraft, if area. the engine does not have inlet guide vanes Ice Maximum Sucked in Maximum cruise To simulate a accumulation continuous on a typical maximum inlet cowl icing and engine encounter at face 25 deg.F. resulting from a 2- minute delay in actuating anti-icing system, or a slab of ice which is comparable in weight or thickness for that size engine Hail (0.8 to For all Rough air Maximum cruise In a volley 0.9 specific engines: With flight speed at 15,000 to simulate gravity) inlet area of of typical feet altitude a hailstone not more than aircraft encounter. 100 square One-half the inches: one number of 1-inch hailstones hailstone. aimed at With inlet random area area of more over the than 100 face of the square inlet and inches: one the other 1-inch and half aimed one 2-inch at the hailstone for critical each 150 face area. square inches of inlet area or fraction thereof For supersonic Supersonic Maximum cruise Aimed at engines (in cruise critical addition): 3 velocity. engine face hailstones Alternatively, area. each having a use subsonic diameter velocities equal to that with larger in a straight hailstones to line give variation equivalent from 1 inch kinetic energy at 35,000 feet to 1/4 inch at 60,000 feet using diameter corresponding to the lowest supersonic cruise altitude expected Water At least 4 Sucked in Flight idle, For 3 minutes percent of acceleration, each at idle engine takeoff, and takeoff, airflow by deceleration and during weight acceleration and deceleration in spray to simulate rain. Note.--The term "inlet area" as used in this section means the engine inlet projected area at the front face of the engine. It includes the projected area of any spinner or bullet nose that is provided. [Amdt. 33-10, 49 FR 6852, Feb. 23, 1984] Sec. 33.92 Windmilling tests. (a) For engines to be used in supersonic aircraft, unless means are incorporated in the engine to stop rotation of the engine rotors when the engine is shut down in flight, each engine rotor must either seize or be capable of rotation for 3 hours at the limiting windmilling rotational r.p.m. with no oil in the engine system, without the engine-- (1) Catching fire; (2) Bursting (releasing hazardous uncontained fragments); or (3) Generating loads greater than those ultimate loads specified in Sec. 33.23(a). (b) A turbojet or turbofan engine incorporating means to stop rotation of the engine rotors when the engine is shut down in flight must be subjected to 25 operations under the following conditions: (1) Each engine must be shut down while operating at rated maximum continuous thrust. (2) For engines certificated for use on supersonic aircraft, the temperature of the induction air and the external surfaces of the engine must be held at the maximum limit during the tests required by this paragraph. Sec. 33.94 Blade containment and rotor unbalance tests. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, it must be demonstrated by engine tests that the engine is capable of containing damage without catching fire and without failure of its mounting attachments when operated for at least 15 seconds, unless the resulting engine damage induces a self shutdown, after each of the following events: (1) Failure of the most critical compressor or fan blade while operating at maximum permissible r.p.m. The blade failure must occur at the outermost retention groove or, for integrally-bladed rotor discs, at least 80 percent of the blade must fail. (2) Failure of the most critical turbine blade while operating at maximum permissible r.p.m. The blade failure must occur at the outermost retention groove or, for integrally-bladed rotor discs, at least 80 percent of the blade must fail. The most critical turbine blade must be determined by considering turbine blade weight and the strength of the adjacent turbine case at case temperatures and pressures associated with operation at maximum permissible r.p.m. (b) Analysis based on rig testing, component testing, or service experience may be substitute for one of the engine tests prescribed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section if-- (1) That test, of the two prescribed, produces the least rotor unbalance; and (2) The analysis is shown to be equivalent to the test. From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (Chilukuri) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:51 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... > >>Hmmm, that brings up another interesting point. Arn't the center engines on >>DC-10/MD11 and LT-1011 aircraft different from the under wing engines? Ya, >>all three are probably made by the same company, but are they different none >>the less? > >They the same engine types, at least as delivered from the factory. The MD11 tail engine is slightly different in performance than the wings. For example, the inlet air has to flow through a much longer path, and has to undergo a rather severe acceleration-deceleration before entering the fan. Also, the thrust reverser cascade arrays are significantly different between the wing and tail. The engine and nacelle hardware are basically the same, but configured differently for the two positions. From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta Flt 1288 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:51 Message-ID: > >They the same engine types, at least as delivered from the factory. > > The MD11 tail engine is slightly different in performance than the wings. Sure, but it's still the same type -- a PW4460 (or PW4462 on the new ER versions) or a CF6-80xx (I don't know the exact model offhand). > For example, the inlet air has to flow through a much longer path, and has > to undergo a rather severe acceleration-deceleration before entering the > fan. I know it's worse than on the DC-10-10, because they retained the same the banjo frames and thus diameter for the main part of the duct, with the flared bell on the front to address the higher airflow requirement. (The DC-10-40 also has this, though I think they're different versions of the same basic idea. The -30 and -15 don't seem to need it.) Do you know how much of a performance hit the #2 on the -10-10 took, if any? > Also, the thrust reverser cascade arrays are significantly different between > the wing and tail. Makes sense, though some would argue that the thrust reverser isn't really part of the engine, since usually it is designed for a given airframe by the *airframe* manufacturer, not by the engine supplier. > The engine and nacelle hardware are basically the same, but configured > differently for the two positions. That was my main point. It's a lot easier to fiddle with some bits on the outside, even big bits like thrust reversers, than it is to have two significantly different engine types on the same airframe. -- 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 Sun Aug 4 16:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: McElravy Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:52 Message-ID: Hmm. Very convincing. The uniformity of the replys to my post was nothing short of astonishing! :-) Until the ghost of William Boeing or Bill Allen, or at least Phil Condit tells me otherwise, I'm sticking with my ways. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: McElravy Subject: RE: Old NW DC-9's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:52 Message-ID: >>This is off the thread, but on the topic of NWA DC-9s. I submitted this >>same question to the AIRLINE mailing list but for some reason the moderator >>didn't approve it, so I'm still left wondering. >What's the AIRLINE mailing list? For AIRLINE list information, please contact the list owner: Geert K. Marien - GKMQC@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (Internet) For those interested, the planes WERE the dash 30 models (mostly). On my first leg (AUS-MEM) I was ahead of the wing, where it was quite quiet. The next leg (MEM-COS) was on a 727 where I was in the second to the last row on the left side of the aircraft (NW 727s have several more rows on the right side) It was very noisy!! The COS-MEM was on another dash 30. Seated behind the wing, it was a little bit noisier. For MEM-AUS, they seated me on a -10, where I was very close to the engines (seeing them out the window is B-A-D, BAD!!!!). I was disappointed at being on the -10 as it was rather decrepit. The -30s are very posh. They are equipped with air phones and overhead bins that close!! The upholstery is also a much more inviting color. In contribution to the continuing JT8D discussion I must note that they are the most odd sounding engines I've flown with. When starting up they sound like a light wind blowing against the plane. At low power they make a weird noise that I can't describe, kinda like an electric slinky (unless you've heard one you can't possibly understand what this noise sounds like.) In flight they just sound like a **really** loud CFM56. They are definitely louder outside than inside. During a recent trip to Washington, DC for tourist stuff I could always tell when a 737-100/200, DC-9, or 727 went over!! Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:52 Message-ID: On 29 Jul 1996, steven tobey wrote: > > >The crew of a (TWA?) 727 was sort of "playing" with the flaps at cruise > > >to milk out a little bit better fuel economy. They did a barrel roll > > >before recovering, losing 10's of thousands of feet of altitude in the > > >process. Not a boring flight at that point. > > The story is true although I can no longer vouch for the date and flight > number of the TWA B727. Please do more research before calling such a story unequivocally "true." > I believe the event took place in the late '70s > and from what little I remember the crew was manipulating the leading > edge slats (by pulling the circuit breakers???) in an attempt to cruise > at a higher altitude. As another "airliners" respondent has said, the crew was ACCUSED of doing this. There NEVER was any proof that they actually did so, however, and in fact, over several months of intense, many-on-one interrogation, the three pilots stuck by their vehement denial of having manipulated any controls or circuit breakers in violation of TWA procedures. So, for you to come along some fifteen or twenty years after the fact, and blandly "convict" these pilots of absolutely unproven behavior, is irresponsible in a forum such as this one. > This failed, the aircraft may have stalled, then > rolled over and lost several thousand feet of altitude before recovering. > During the recovery the landing gear was deployed to help slow the > aircraft's descent damaging the gear doors. The aircraft made an > emergency landing safely. IIRC the Captain's name was "Hoot" Gibson. The aircraft's FDR did confirm the roll and subsequent loss of altitude, as described above. Captain Gibson's cool-headed response to a disaster-in-the-making, however, could easily be called heroic. Likewise, the possibility that the 30-min. CVR tape "rolled over" the events leading up to the descent is every bit as plausible as the possibility that it was deliberately erased by the crew - which they also vehemently denied doing. Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: George McElhoe Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Oklahoma State University Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:52 Message-ID: If you want to read the report, it can be found in your local federal repository library (the university library at Oklahoma State is one). The NTSB report number is AAR 81-08 and the NTIS number is 81-910408. The incident happened April 4, 1979 near Saginaw MI. (One of my students in an Aviation Safety class used this report for a class project this summer). --------------------------------------------------- George C. McElhoe, Jr. Assistant Professor, Aviation Education Oklahoma State University See our homepage: http://bubba.uss.okstate.edu/aesp From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:52 Message-ID: On 29 Jul 1996, Ian Kershaw wrote: > Tex Johnson, test pilot at Boeing rolled the prototype 707 over Seattle > in from of asembled crowds watching the power boat races. The maneuver > actually has the plane in a 1g state all the way round. During a tour of the 747 factory at Everett (WA) a couple of years ago, a movie of this barrel roll was shown. According to the tour guide, Tex Johnson was immediately fired for this unauthorized maneuver, but was "re-hired" very shortly afterward. Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! 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: 04 Aug 96 16:44:53 Message-ID: It was over MI as I recall. Early 70's? As others said, the inference was they'd tried to drag some flaps to raise the performance. A leading edge also deployed. They went from the service ceiling to ?11,000 ft? at night in a dive that buckled a wing root. They popped the gear to try & break the reputed supersonic dive; losing the doors instantly. At 10,000+, the slat departed & the crew recovered by visual reference alone; everything had tumbled or some reason ;-| [At night, remember] They landed, but kept the engines lit for 40 minutes, and just happened to hit the CVR-wipe.... [Only active with gear squatted.] When the A&P's jacked up the a/c, the main gear fell off. The NTSB went full-court press. They even took the ?7?-channel stainless foil/pen-scribe-type FDR & subjected it to centrifuge G-force at NASA. Why? To account for the slop in the pens at those loads! [Look up thorough in the dictionary & see the NTSB logo..] -- 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 Aug 4 16:44:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: neilcothran@worldnet.att.net (John N. Cothran) Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:53 Message-ID: steven tobey wrote: >Daan Vlaskamp wrote: >> >> >The crew of a (TWA?) 727 was sort of "playing" with the flaps at cruise >> >to milk out a little bit better fuel economy. They did a barrel roll >> >before recovering, losing 10's of thousands of feet of altitude in the >> >process. Not a boring flight at that point. >> >> Never heard that story before. Do you have more information about this >> "incident" ? >The story is true although I can no longer vouch for the date and flight >number of the TWA B727. I believe the event took place in the late '70s >and from what little I remember the crew was manipulating the leading >edge slats (by pulling the circuit breakers???) in an attempt to cruise >at a higher altitude. This failed, the aircraft may have stalled, then >rolled over and lost several thousand feet of altitude before recovering. >During the recovery the landing gear was deployed to help slow the >aircraft's descent damaging the gear doors. The aircraft made an >emergency landing safely. IIRC the Captain's name was "Hoot" Gibson. Several years ago, I attended a "short course" taught by Prof. Jan Roskam, of Kansas University. Dr. Roskam related the above story anecdotally during one of his lectures regarding aeroelastics. According to memory (supported by re-reading this thread) the crew was attempting to partially extend the trailing edge flaps to a position which was actually somewhere between the UP detent and the first detent (2 deg? 5deg?). In order to prevent the deployment of the leading edge slats and Kreuger flaps, the "theory" was that the main leading edge drive circuit breakers would have to be pulled. Whatever the exact sequence of events was, at some point the leading edge devices extended. The outboard LE slat on the port wing was ripped away, leading to the "barrel roll" (which I believe as actually several rolls). Dr. Roskam also related that he was subsequently retained by Boeing as an "expert witness" during the ensuing legal melee, and was involved that extensive evaluation of the incident, including both simulation and "reflights" that were made by Boeing. Also, I recall him telling us that the wing/body fairing area of the fuselage had been slightly and permanently "bent" (or was it the wing root joint?) from the stresses imposed by deployment of the landing gear during the (successful) effort to regain control. Anyway, his report was that all the subsequent checks of the aircraft indicated that it was perfectly "safe", so it was placed back into service. Interestingly enough, he reported, that aircraft exhibited a noticable drop in total fuel consumption over the remainder of it's service life at TWA. Ending on a humorous note, he also related that, several years later, on a vacation flight with his wife, he noted the tail number of the aircraft they were boarding, and decided not to tell her............ From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Causes and solutions for window crazing. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:53 Message-ID: petercoe@netcom.com (Pete Coe) wrote: >Just back from my first flight in way too long. Thanks to >my travel agent I managed to get a window seat, but ended >up severely dissapointed because I could barely see out of >the window. It was so badly scratched/crazed that it was >more like looking out of frosted glass than a real window. > I have exactly the same complaint.... >All planes I travel on seem to have some level of scratches, >but this was by far the worst I can remember. Actually, I see a wide variation. The clearest windows I've had in recent memory have been on several Delta 727's (well, the 5-month old MD-90s had clear windows too), but what looks like a date code etched in the window (if it *is* a date code) indicated that the windows were manufactured in circa 1987- long after the plane itself. How often are the windows replaced, anyway? Even if they were replaced, they seem very clear compared to other very new airplanes. The most abraded windows I've seen were on Delta and American ships, but these were 757's and MD 80s. >I seem to recall that this crazing was blamed on volcanic ash, >and the volcano blamed was the one that nearly downed a BA 747 >a decade or so back. I seriously doubt this, since I also noticed that the abrasions tend to be near vertical! A plane flying through ash would surely abrade in a horizontal direction. I can only assume that the process of cleaning or stripping/repainting the aircraft is the culprit. Actually, I would guess its cleaning, since I've ridden American Airlines planes with windows that were just as scratched as the Delta planes I mentioned. >I would like to think that part of the care and maintenance of >a plane would be the polishing and/or replacement of fuzzy windows, >but as they are not a safety item what is the reality? Are they not a safety item? I really wonder about this. Isn't it likely that the scratches could eventually lead to stress fractures as the windows flex during pressure cycles? Or is this simply not a problem in the case of the window material? -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: petersch@mindspring.com (Peter Schrand) Subject: Re: Causes and solutions for window crazing. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:53 Message-ID: Windows have to be removed from the aircraft before polishing. Polishing them while still installed runs the risk of wearing them down below their minimum safe thickness as measurement is difficult. From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: phipps@ionet.net (James Phipps) Subject: Re: Jet Engine Containment Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: IONet Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:54 Message-ID: In article , pwezeman@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu says... > > What degree of containment in the event of a burst fan, compressor or >turbine disk is supposed to be provided by a jet engine housing or nacelle? >I seem to recall reading that some engines used kevlar to help armor the >shroud. Is this a new requirement? I don't know what the current FAR's require for blade containment. The fan section is the most vulnerable to failure since it is the first area subject to FOD strikes. The fan blade tips themselves are traveling just under the speed of sound when the engine is spooled-up. The compressor and turbine blades are not as much a problem since they rotate on a much smaller diameter. I do know that in recent years B737's w/G.E. engines used kevlar in the engine housing. At Boeing's plant in Witchita,KS, I saw inlet shrouds for G.E. engines during construction. There was a ring of kevlar on the inside of the inlet where the fan disk would be. The Boeing engineer explained that it was kevlar cloth folded up into a thick ring having several layers (akind to a bullet-proof vest). He said this setup was tested by intentionally exploding a fan disk at operating r.p.m. He said only one piece of one blade made it through the kevlar ring. If I were sitting opposite an engine during a fan disk failure, that would be one piece too many! Sorry I couldn't give you more on the reg's. James Phipps phipps@ionet.net Manufacturing Engineer NORDAM Transparency Div.-Tulsa "I only do windows!" From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steven Foister Subject: Re: Jet Engine Containment Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: GEC-Marconi Avionics Ltd. Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:54 Message-ID: One of the certification tests required for all turbofans involves blowing a small charge near the root of a fan blade whilst the engine is in operation, causing it to detach. For the engine to pass the test, the blade needs to be fully contained. For the new large turbofans, this is an extremely demanding test. Kevlar is used as part of the containment because of its high tensile strength and low weight, and Rolls-Royce and Pratt&Witney have both used plenty of it on their engines to pass this test. GE however have a much heavier fan blade, which is more difficult to contain. Last I heard (January) their engine for the B777 had still not passed this test. They were trying to get a test which involved detonation half way up the blade (much less demanding) accepted instead. I believe that the GE90 engine is actually only operating at present on several such temporary waivers. Which would make me think twice about getting on a (GE-powered) BA 777. Anyway, I am sure that someone from GE will write in and refute me on that. Some of your neighbours at Iowa State are also likely to know more on this than I do. Finally, the reason for this test is the damage that a detached blade could do. But what about turboprops? Steve From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:54 Message-ID: In kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>What made the Junkers Aircraft Diesels so unusual was the unique >>configuration : an opposed piston two-stroke turbo-supercharged >>diesel. Unlike a Subaru or VW auto engine, there were 2 pistons >>in each cylinder (driven from opposing sides via synchronized >>crankshafts). There is also the Zoche aero diesel that has been shown at Oshkosh probably every year since 1985, when I saw it. Herr Zoche is the (West) German who has been trying to get this thing off the ground, so to speak. As I remember, it is a 4 cyl radial, and possibly aircooled. He claimed a very impressive power to weight ratio. I don't know the current status, but I believe it became a bit of a joke in EAA circles. RD From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ISFSI Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:54 Message-ID: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) wrote: > When I had Aircraft Engine shop in High School (1948-1950), we had >a set of drawings of a radial diesel aircraft engine. Can't remember >for certain, but I think the engine had been designed, and possibly >built, by Packard. The Packard DR-980 was, indeed, a radial diesel, certificated in 1930 at 225 hp at 1,950 rpm, weighing 510 lb. The vibration and smell, however, proved to be unfixable. The engine set an unrefueled duration record of 84 hours 32 minutes, in a Bellanca, May 1931. From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:54 Message-ID: In article , l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay ) wrote: > When I had Aircraft Engine shop in High School (1948-1950), we had > a set of drawings of a radial diesel aircraft engine. Can't remember > for certain, but I think the engine had been designed, and possibly > built, by Packard. One of the instructors told us two of the engines > had been mounted on either a Beech D-18 or a Lockheed Lodestar. Packard did indeed build a radial diesel engine for aircraft use. I have a book somewhere with photos and drawings of the engine. It looked like a "normal" radial. However, the book states that it was too heavy for its power output to be useful, and was never put into production. I don't know if it was ever mounted on an airplane, but I assume it must have been in order to determine its performance and practicality. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dave Benjamin Subject: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Slip.Net Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:54 Message-ID: Let me say up front that the MD-80 is among my favorite airliners to fly in -- very quiet up front (not so in the rear, but I can normally avoid the aft rows), good T/O and climb performance, POWERFUL flaps. But I can't get over the far aft positioning of the wings, negative incidence of the stab, and positive incidence of the thrust. How do all of these combine to make the MD-80 an efficient flying machine (or do they not)? From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dweeks@primenet.com (David Weeks) Subject: Re: Airbus Gust-Load Alleviation systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:55 Message-ID: Also, for what it's worth... You can dispatch the airplane with the LAF out of service (according to the approved MEL procedure), but you need to limit the maximum altitude to FL 310 if the ZFW is above 123,450 pounds. | ------------------------- | | | 4. REMARKS OR EXCEPTIONS | | 27 FLIGHT CONTROLS | | | | | | | | | | 14-01 Aileron C | 4 | 3 | (M)(O)One may be inoperative | | | Hydraulic Servo | | | provided: | | Actuator System | | | a) It remains conncected and | | | | | hydraulically supplied | | | | | damping function is not | | | | | affected, | | | | | b) All roll spoilers operate | | | | | normally, | | | | | c) LAF degraded operates norm- | | | | | ally (LAF not displayed INOP | | | | | on ECAM STATUS page), | | | | | d) Airplane is flown at or be- | | | | | low FL 310 when ZFW is at or | | | | | above 123,450 lb., and | | | | | e) Takeoff weight is limited | | | | | to a maximum of 162,040 lb. From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Airbus Gust-Load Alleviation systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Telepath Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:55 Message-ID: In article , t43583@dax.dehavilland.ca says... > /// >Ian Gray from Bae Filton presented "Fatigue >Crack Propagation Test Programme for the A320 Wing". Showed that the >flight was more comfortable for the PAX, but the cracks grew faster with >gust alleviation on over crack rates with gust alleviation off. If you >don't get the gust overloads, you don't get the fatigue life! Perhaps fairer to suggest: 'If you get the gust-alleviation actuator induced overloads, you don't get the fatigue life?' brian From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:55 Message-ID: In article , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > Then, my question is will Boeing feel comfortable leaving the > over-600-seat market to Airbus? If there IS a 600-plus-seat market. The costs of not only the airplane but the modifications needed to terminal, ramp, boarding, customs/immigration, and baggage handling systems to accomodate such airplanes are staggering. The concept of using LARGER airplanes to accomodate the growing demand for air transportation because most airports are hindered from expanding their facilities to accomodate MORE airplanes is sound, but the practicality and cost-effectiveness of actually developing the airplanes and making the necessary modifications to the terminal systems is still very much in question. Whether or not you see the A-3XX or the extended 747 family is solely dependent upon whether or not a viable market exists, a question which at this point in time is very much unanswered. So don't go out an buy a wide-angle lens yet. You may not need it. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: brians368@aol.com (Brian S368) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: brians368@aol.com (Brian S368) Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:55 Message-ID: Michael Leduc wrote: >That may be true, but one must not extend the wing too much [on the 747-400]. >The maximum wing span has just about been reached for commercial aircraft, >for the time being. Extending the wing size would mean new airport >terminal design for nose-in-gate positioning or parking the aircraft >out on an apron and using shuttle busses. What about the much-publicized fold up wing design optioned on the 777? It is already in use with military jet (to save room on aircraft carriers, I think). I don't think it has been ordered by any 777 purchaser (too much extra $, unneeded?). The fold up wing would seem to solve the problem. "Always remember - you are unique, just like everyone else" BrianS368@aol.com From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Procedure after Engine Fire Warning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:56 Message-ID: As a practicing aeronautical engineer I am debating with my Operations colleagues the correct procedure in response to an Engine Fire Warning if the warning goes away prior to shutting the engine down. My view would be that you shut down anyway and isolate fuel, hydraulics etc. My pilot friends say if the warning goes away at idle it was just a hot gas leak and they would continue with that engine at idle. Any views? Does it make a difference how many engines you have? Is there a normal practice in the civil field? My background is in the fast jet military field, but in this case we are talking about a medium size tactical reconnaisance aircraft. Also can anyone tell me about normal practice with respect to high pressure air pipes from a tail APU to engine starters. What precautions are taken on civil aircraft against hot gas leaks(220 degC,430degF)? Leak detection wire? Double walled pipes? Are assisted relights of engines allowed in flight or only windmill? Thanks for any info. Gerald Wilson. From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Mark A. Brown" Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:56 Message-ID: Speaking of airframe limits reminds me of a book I read on handling large aircraft by the late CAA pilot D.P.Davies, who gave a good pilot's interpretation of the structural engineer's talk. However, my recall is ropy (I left the book in the UK and I am now in Japan) but I'm sure Robert or some other will correct me. Anyway, the published design limit is the limit to which you can load up the airframe and it will bend of course, but when you unload it, it is guaranteed to bend back to its original shape. In order to guarantee this behaviour there has to be a margin, of course. Loading over the design load but under what I recall as the ultimate load (I may be wrong), the aircraft will bend but when you unload it is not guaranteed to bend back to its original shape. However, it shouldn't fall apart. Over the ultimate load and not only is it not guaranteed to bend back to its original shape but you run the risk of something failing. However, even then different bits will fail at different loads, and you'd have to load pretty seriously before something like the wing spar failed (although tailplane failure would probably occur at a substantially lower load). --- Reflecting on postings a little more, then, by folks more qualified to comment than myself, the emerging concensus seems to be that pilots don't tend to gratuitously pull high positive or negative Gs without good reason; if it's to save one's skin, one doesn't really care if the machine is going to be a little crooked afterwards. However, with an FBW computer limiting the airframe to "design limits" this may not be an option. Speculation; I suppose on an aircraft with artificial feel/force feedback in the control system, you could let the pilot pull up to the limit with a certain amount of control force, but if more is wanted you could provide a "force barrier" to be overcome. This means that the pilot would be unlikely to overload the airframe by accident, but if required, a higher load factor could be achieved with a really heavy pull of the "both feet on the panel and heave" type. In an aircraft with no dynamic control loading mechanism (like Airbus sidestick types, for example), this is not really a viable mechanism, of course. --- As a final word, I do recall there was at least one crash of a military aircraft due to a pilot running out of pitch authority because of the operation of the departure prevention system. Trouble is that he was in a tight turn close to the ground, didn't expect the system to behave the way it did, and was surprised when his control inputs were getting progressively less effective. (I think he may have left the departure prevention system inadvertently engaged in the wrong part of the flight envelope.) Just my 2p's worth. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Mark A. Brown (mark@nal.go.jp) STA Research Fellow, National Aerospace Laboratory, Tokyo, Japan ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: Tom Speer Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:56 Message-ID: Pete Mellor wrote: > > C. Marin Faure writes in response to > John M. Hunt :- > > > A computer (so far) can't > > anticipate every single variable that can affect an airplane. > > After "so far" add "and almost certainly never". The anticipation > is done by the designers of the system, and particularly the software > designers. The software cannot be better than its specification, and > no specification can define behaviour appropriate to all eventualities > in the environment of the aircraft. > >... Problems with software design for automated flight systems are not confined to the cockpit. The recent Ariane 5 failure has highlighted this issue in spectacular fashion, and the crash of the Dark Star reconnaisance drone also has been attributed to software changes made after the first flight (ref. recent Aviation Week articles). This is a little off topic for sci.aeronautics.airliners, so I'm cross posting to sci.aeronautics, and the thread is probably better continued there. The Ariane 5 mishap raises lots of questions about software development practices: - Should one minimize the execution of code that isn't completely relevant to the task at hand, or does it matter? - Limits checking for some of the variables was apparently deleted in an effort to maintain their specification on spare execution time. Should spare resource requirements be treated as hard specs, or management reserve to be released as required in the final design? - Was realistic hardware in the loop simulation performed, and if not, should it be required of all digital flight control systems? - Ariane apparently did not provide for automatic restart following an arithmetic overflow. What are reasonable scenarios that the designer should consider with respect to accomodating the generic software fault? - Does this experience strengthen the argument for dissimilar redundancy or backup systems? Finally, I see two trends converging: systems are becoming more and more automated, with some missions handed over to totally autonomous vehicles (Global Hawk, Dark Star, X-33, etc.). The second trend is the low number of new airframe designs being done today. In the 50's, an engineer could expect to work on something like 20 designs in one's career, and today the average is something like 2, with the result that a great number of engineers are working on their first aircraft, and the "experienced" hands have only seen one more before that. What do these two trends say about our ability anticipate problems and design for them in automated systems? TS From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: don@firstsol.com (don shifris) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:56 Message-ID: In article , mikem727@aol.com says... > >In article , Rob Tremblay > writes: > >>The Airbus has a safety feature that only allows a pilot to pull the >>maximum g-limit of the airplane- no more. Why would you want to >>overstress the airframe? > >What if a situation arises where the only way out requires overstressing >the airplane? This could be recovery from unusual attitudes, or evasive >action to avoid traffic or terrain. There have been accidents where the >the airframe was overstressed in order to recover. For certification, the >airframe must withstand 150% of published G-limits without failure. >Someday that extra 50% percent may be needed. From what I've read, Airbus >FBW doesn't give you that option, even in direct law. I don't know about >Boeing's FBW. > There is kind of a fundemental problem here. If we are going to make the pilot ultiimtely responsible, we better make sure he has ultimate responsibility. The problems with current situation are pretty well understood. Airbus airplanes have this nasty habit of second guessing the pilot at very inopportune times. I suggest you take a good look at the post accident investigation for the LH A320 that was destroyed on landing at Warsaw. On an aircraft that didn't second guess the pilot, that landing would have been a total non-event. Instead the aircraft thought it knew better, and would not allow the spoilers, reverse thrust, or brakes to be applied because the aircraft doesn't have enough weight on the gear. Aircraft ends up going right off the end of the runway and is destroyed. Given the choice between a guaranteed fatal accident, and possibly overstressing the airframe, I think most of us would pick the overstressing the airframe. If you overstress the airframe, the aircraft might crash. If you don't, you are certainly to crash. That is an easy judgment call. My other concern is over 'bugs' in this stuff. I have worked in the computer industry for a long time. People are taught to solve specific problems in specific ways. The Airbus approach is to use seperate teams, and seperate hardware to insure this doesn't happen. The problem is that since these people tend to be educated the same way, they tend to solve the problem the same way, so it is very likely that the same, possibly bad, underlying assumption were used in all solutions. I produced a disk driver for a super minicomputer to address a specific problem. The manufacturer also produced a disk driver to solve the same problem. Anyone who looked at the resultant machine code would have concluded that the same person wrote both. I never did find out who wrote their version, but I never communicated with him. Food for thought. My opinions anyway From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: dweeks@primenet.com (David Weeks) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:57 Message-ID: From what I've read, Airbus >FBW doesn't give you that option, even in direct law. I don't know about >Boeing's FBW. When you are in direct law in the A320, you are talking directly to the control surfaces, and the normal and alternate law protections are gone. You can loop, roll, and spin to your heart's delight... David Weeks HP A320 captain From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:57 Message-ID: In article , mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) wrote: > In article , Rob Tremblay > writes: > > >The Airbus has a safety feature that only allows a pilot to pull the > >maximum g-limit of the airplane- no more. Why would you want to > >overstress the airframe? > > What if a situation arises where the only way out requires overstressing > the airplane? This could be recovery from unusual attitudes, or evasive > action to avoid traffic or terrain. There have been accidents where the > the airframe was overstressed in order to recover. For certification, the > airframe must withstand 150% of published G-limits without failure. > Someday that extra 50% percent may be needed. From what I've read, Airbus > FBW doesn't give you that option, even in direct law. I don't know about > Boeing's FBW. The Boeing control (cable or fly-by-whire) philosophy is to give the pilots the ability to do anything they want with the airplane whenever they want. The system will warn them when they approach the limits of approved operation, and it will make it difficult to exceed these limits (higher stick pressures, loud horns, verbal alerts, flashing lights, etc.) but the pilots of Boeing airplanes CAN exceed the limits if they deem it is necessary to ensure the safety of the airplane. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: united / boeing crash Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northern Indiana Internet Access, Inc. Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:57 Message-ID: I am looking for information on an Oct. 1933 crash of a United Airline Boeing 247(?) airliner in Porter, County Indiana. Anyone with tips or info please contact me at: David Canright 219-926-1131(wk) chestertontrib@niia.net From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: phipps@ionet.net (James Phipps) Subject: Re: Q: Black Stripe, TWA Aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: IONet Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:57 Message-ID: >> Could be something to do with the fact that the Black area of the wing is >> hotter, so birds don't stand on that bit when the plane is parked, and >> then you don't get bird crap anywhere important ! >> > > The black stripes are high-tech icing detectors. If the stripe > is black, no ice. If the stripe is white, ice. It's virtually > foolproof... > > > Folks, try not to make the black stripe on the wing more technically advanced that what it is. The black area is simply a non-skid surface on which maintenance techs, etc. can do their inspections/repairs without falling off the wing. Also, how many birds have you seen sitting on the wing of an airliner? Most operators don't let their planes sit still long enough for birds to start roosting on them. AOG's cost $$$. James Phipps phipps@ionet.net Manufacturing Engineer NORDAM Transparency Div.-Tulsa From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Subject: Re: Q: Black Stripe, TWA Aircraft Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: mikem727@aol.com (MikeM727) Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:57 Message-ID: In article , Jennings Heilig writes: > The black stripes are high-tech icing detectors. If the stripe > is black, no ice. If the stripe is white, ice. It's virtually > foolproof... Reminds me of the "high-tech" ice detectors on the Learjet. It consisted of two red lensed "penlights" shining up from the glareshield through the windshield. If you saw a red dot on the windshield, you had ice! (Otherwise the light just shined through.) Can you say, "M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E" ? Mike, ATP/FE, Boeing 727, (formerly Lear 35A) ************************ Props are for boats! ************************ From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: TWA flight 800 and the missile theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: worldbank Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:57 Message-ID: Robert Dorsett wrote: > I'm only familiar with three accidents in which bombings have caused a jet > transport to crash: a TWA 707 over the Ionian Sea in the early 1970s; the > Pan Am crash; the Air India 747 over the Atlantic which nobody talks about. Then there's the UTA DC-10 over Africa, the Korean 707 over Burma, a Cathay Pacific CV-880 over Viet-Nam, ... and others which I'd have to check my sources on first. (And BTW, almost every longish article I've seen on the TWA bomb theory does mention the Air India 747.) > Does anyone else find it incomprehensible that, with the likelihood a > bomber is on the loose, body recovery is being made the #1 priority of the > investigation team, apparently in a concession to media pressure, opportun- > istic politicians, and grieving victims' families? Incomprehensible? No. In fact, you just explained it. Dumb? Yes. Stefano From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: MD-88 Tail Cone (Delta) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:58 Message-ID: In mohica@ix.netcom.com (William L. Thomas) writes: > >Regarding the tail cones....I've noticed some like those on Alaskan >Airlines are flattened wedges, others are actual cones. What is the >advantage of one over another? All MD-80 series built since about 1987 have the "beaver" tail. I was told that it reduces drag, but I don't know by how much. The plane is already tail heavy, and it is hollow, so ballast can't be the reason. I leave for LAX in half an hour to catch an Alaska Airlines MD-83 non-stop to Anchorage. I will be taking the milk run back from ANC to SEAttle, with stops in: Juneau, Wrangell, St. ???, and Ketchikan. It is supposed to be very scenic in good wx. RD From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: MD-88 Tail Cone (Delta) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:58 Message-ID: William L. Thomas wrote: > > In James Buongiovanni > > The Tail Cone of the DC-9/MD-80 aircraft ... > > Regarding the tail cones....I've noticed some like those on Alaskan > Airlines are flattened wedges, others are actual cones. What is the > advantage of one over another? The cones are on all DC-9s and MD-80s produced before sometime in the mid to late 1980s. At that point, Douglas switched over to the wedge tail cones, which are worth about 1% drag in cruise. You will note the same switchover when Douglas went from producing the DC-10 to the MD-11. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Aug 4 16:44:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ranger30@ix.netcom.com (Steven Macom) Subject: Re: MD-88 Tail Cone (Delta) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:58 Message-ID: In mohica@ix.netcom.com (William L. Thomas) writes: > >In James Buongiovanni >> The Tail Cone of the DC-9/MD-80 aircraft ... > >Regarding the tail cones....I've noticed some like those on Alaskan >Airlines are flattened wedges, others are actual cones. What is the >advantage of one over another? McDonnell Douglas found the wedge-shaped taper to be more aerodynamic than the cylindrical variety. The taper tail can be retrofitted to older cylindrical shaped varieties. Steve From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: DC-6 Crash in Alaska Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: <4tojl9$ofq@boris.infomagic.com> Organization: Netcom Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:58 Message-ID: In <4tojl9$ofq@boris.infomagic.com> bilpat@infomagic.com writes: >Anybody know the id of the Northern Air Cargo DC-6 that crashed in >Alaska last week. I don't know its tail number, but I can provide some info. Just this month the FAA presented Northern Air Cargo with an award for forty years of accident-free flying. That had to be a record to end all. Last week one of their 14 DC-6 A/B caught fire aft of the #3 engine. The crew tried to land at Russian Lake, near Bethel. They made a low pass and go-around, apparently because of pedestrians on or near the runway. They crashed on downwind with all four fatals. 3 crew plus jumpseat. This is apparently the first crash of a plane equipped with a new solid-state cockpit voice recorder. It worked, after the NTSB got equipment for the readout. NAC gets their DC-6's ex-USAF from Davis-Mothan. The mods include modern avionics. When a plane reaches its 10,000 hour life limit, they part it and go get another, transferring avionics, etc. They get a very respectable 2,500 between overhauls of the R-2800 engines. And this with 100LL (lotsa lead) in lieu of 115-145. They say there is no good replacement for the DC-6. The Electra and C-130 Herc can't make it out of the short, unimproved fields. A jet - even the 737-200 with gravel kit - is out of the question. They do have a 727-100 for other work however. RD From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:58 Message-ID: >> This impasse can be >> resolved through an instrument all pilots carry with them: "their >> ass strapped to the hardware", as someone else put it. Pilots are tought to that this instrument is highly unreliable and not to be trusted under any circumstances. I read an interview with a female airshow pilot. She likes to wear earrings as they are an excellent reminder of her attitude. IF you do a coordinated manuver you can be inverted and not spill and drink in the back. >Aaah, but how do you know that your attitude indicator is not faulty? >What if the various attitude indicators on board also didn't agree? >See the problem? They have to identify which instruments they can >trust. It is also worth while to remember that FAR Part 25 requires a complete set of Standby Instruments which are totally independent of the 'normal' displays. All the flight crew had to do in the Bergenair case was to look at the standby airspeed indicator, compare it with the Captains and First Officers airspeed indicators (assuming that they were in the normal Captain's on left, and FO on right - IF they were 'BOTH ON ONE' then they were in deep doo-do anyway) to see which two agree. This is why they are put into the flight deck - to allow the flight crew to do a 2-out-of-3 vote. Brian From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) Subject: Re: A brief commentary Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Canadian Marconi Company Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:59 Message-ID: I'll just throw in some bull for good measure... In the string of articles above, there is mention of spatial disorientation. All pilots, as has been mentioned, have experienced various degrees of vertigo and disorientation. It is a unique sensation, and usually fairly easy to override when it is identified. But throw in a bunch of other "distractors" and the vertigo or disorientation can overpower. A B-737 in Latin America took off one night and sometime after reaching cruise suddenly rolled off and then spiraled into the jungle. It was later determined that the VG channel had failed. Also both the captain and FO were tied to the same VG, because one of the VG's was TU. So as the reference VG failed and the ADI roled over, the pilot counter rolled to remain level. ...to no avail, so roll even harder... soon they were in a spiral and never recovered. What I fail to understand is why they did not check the standby attitude indicator. The crew presumably knew that since they were both tied to the same VG, that any cross checking should be with the standby indicator. Also, basic instrument flying dictates that a banked attitude will produce a turn...if they had checked the HSI, they would have seen whether or not they were turning...if they ain't changing heading then there is something wrong with this bank attitude indication. It is my belief that generally airline cockpit instruments are SO reliable that pilots get lured into always believing what they see. This makes identifying a failed instrument late...and puts the aircraft in a position that is increasingly difficult to recover from... The above is just my opinion. Alan Browne From kls Sun Aug 4 16:44:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jim Ballentine Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Oracle Chile Date: 04 Aug 96 16:44:59 Message-ID: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) wrote: > >Apparently, one fuel saving technique being used is the plane is towed to >the runway and engines started in the runup area. > I've always wondered why airports don't provide towing service to/from the runway. It seems that a lot of fuel is wasted having airplanes taxing all over the ground under their own power. Can anybody provide some numbers as to how much (in gallons and/or $) this costs? -- Jim B. The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation. From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Clive Leyman) Subject: Re: Airbus Gust-Load Alleviation systems Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Reply-To: cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:18 Message-ID: >In a paper presented at the International Committee on Aircraft Fatigue >(ICAF) 1987 Ottawa Canada, Ian Gray from Bae Filton presented "Fatigue >Crack Propagation Test Programme for the A320 Wing". Showed that the >flight was more comfortable for the PAX, but the cracks grew faster with >gust alleviation on over crack rates with gust alleviation off. If you >don't get the gust overloads, you don't get the fatigue life! This sounds crazy but it isn't really. Cracks (and we are talking about design for damage tolerance here), grow steadily under normal flight loads, but if a big load comes along, either from a gust or a big manoeuvre, then as I understand it the material at the tip of the crack becomes work-hardened and, as after cold-working, is left with a bit of residual compressive stress that delays further crack growth. So yes, if you don't get large gust loads you will get faster crack growth (taken over reasonable time span) and will end up with shorter inspection intervals. I don't believe the bit about 'more comfortable for the PAX though, as the A320 GLA was designed to alleviate the design loads or something close to that, and that almost by definition is something that happens only once in 50,000 hrs. So the impact on day to day passenger comfort can't be all that much. Clive From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:18 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:18 Message-ID: In article , Michael McEvilley wrote: > > > Now: does anyone know how to pronounce "Boeing 314"? :-) We all say "three-fourteen." The individual number pronunciation is a relatively new ruling, and came into being after the introduction of the jet transports. It does not apply to planes prior to the 707. So the B-17 is still the B-17, not the Bee-One-Seven, and so forth. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:19 Message-ID: > In article Pete Mellor writes: > > > After having assumed for a long time that the 777 was "seven-seven-seven", > > since 747 is "seven-four-seven", etc., I am trying to mend my ways now > > that I have been specifically told by numerous people within Boeing and > > by people in the UK who have been involved in the 777 programme that > > *nobody* *ever* says *anything* other than "triple-seven". This is incorrect. It's true that we almost always refer to the airplane as the "triple seven," but that doesn't change the fact that the airplane is officially called the "seven-seven-seven." Some of our executives make the effort to use the "proper" name in speeches and others don't. I know a lot of people, particularly in our communications, marketing, and public relations departments that always call the plane the "seven-seven-seven." There is no penalty for calling the plane the triple seven, but its official designator is "seven-seven-seven." C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tymogee@aol.com (TymOgee) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: tymogee@aol.com (TymOgee) Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:19 Message-ID: (As I was going to St. Ives......................) For what it's worth, I grew up with "Seven-Oh-Twenty-Thirty-ect. Seven. The 777 is the triple seven. Now that I'm getting into the business, I have switched to saying Seven Two, Seven Three..............ect. Now I have a question in a similar vein: Is it an Em Dee Eleven? From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:19 Message-ID: >Now I have a question in a similar vein: Is it an Em Dee Eleven? At the risk of opening a huge new can of worms, that's what I call it when I don't refer to it as a Mad Dog. (I call the DC-10 the Death Crate, a name borrowed from a friend who prefers to remain anonymous. FBW Airbuses are Lumberjacks, which I picked up from a 737 captain -- I'm sure she and her employer would also prefer anonymity. Lest I be accused of reserving disparaging terms for non-Boeing planes, I call the older 747s, with the original three window configuration of the upper deck, Three Holers, and don't view them with very much more enthusiasm than a similarly named outhouse. :-) ) -- 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 Aug 5 04:21:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: 75240.354@compuserve.com (Pascal Violero) Subject: Concorde site Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PSO Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:19 Message-ID: To know all about this wonderful supersonic plane GO TO CONCORDE SITE !! http://www.utbm.fr/les.personnes/david.trebosc/e_index.htm Si vous comprenez mieux le Francais que l'anglais ou l'americain : Tout sur le Concorde, the superbe supersonique. http://www.utbm.fr/les.personnes/david.trebosc/index.htm ou http://www.utbm.fr/les.personnes/david.trebosc From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: tiffany.tyler@man.ac.uk (Tiffany Tyler) Subject: Re: Good book on Jet Engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: PREST- University of Manchester Reply-To: Tiffany.Tyler@man.ac.uk Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:19 Message-ID: Tony Maddern wrote: >Al Secen wrote: >> >> Can anyone recommend a good instructional book (not too detailed) >> that covers the various types of jet engines? Something that >> discusses axial flow, bypass, ramjet, et al.? >Rolls-Royce Aero Engines (Derby, UK) have put out a very good book >called "The Jet Engine" which covers all your points but of course >focusses on R-R products. You might also look at a book by Edward Constant called "The Turbojet Revolution" (Johns Hopkins University Press). It's a very readable history of jet engines and how they came to be adopted across the industry. While it's a "sociology of science" kind of book, the technical appendices are easy to follow and very complete. Particularly for a non-specialist, the book offers good insight into the industry and the technology. Regards, Tiffany Tyler From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:19 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:19 Message-ID: Graham Glen wrote: >In article , Don Stokes > >Your quite right, I'm sorry I was going from memory rather than >checking. Series 1 & 2S Comets had Ghosts. > >>I don't believe the preferred engies were Conways -- they didn't turn up >>until the 707 era. The RR engines proposed for for the Comet 1 were pure >>turbojets like the Ghosts; Conways are fans. >>I'm not sure about the Comet 4; they may have had Conways. > >No, they had Avons as well. Mk 117 (7,300lb st) for the series 2 Comets, >Mark 502 (10,000lb st) for series 3 and Mark 524 (10,500lb st) for >series 4. (I did check this time!) My 1989 issue of "Jane's World Aircraft" lists the Nimrod (military development of the Comet) as having Spey engines. Were the Nimrods built with Speys, or was this a re-engining operation? -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence, safety, and old airlines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:20 Message-ID: In Michael Page writes: >Returning to the original posting, the difference may be here that >QANTAS has been around for a long time and flown a lot of miles. >It recently celebrated its *75th* anniversary. America West, with up to 100 short/medium range planes has probably logged as many flights in its ten years as Qantas has in 75. (But not as many miles, granted.) Coincidentally, Mexicana Airlines celebrated its 75th anniversary this month. It is the second oldest airline in North America. RD From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back From: we@borg.net (The Borg) Subject: Re: Detection of clear air turbulence Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:20 Message-ID: Lets not forget the perfect record of Air Jamaica! While this is a relatively new/young airline, there has never been any accidents or serious injury to any passenger. The only ''negative'' re AJ is back in the 70's a pilot on approach to what I believe is EWR announced to the controller: ''I man a bring dis ya iron bird in fi a landin''. The ATC and the FAA were not amused and the pilot was, I believe, fined for this act. From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:20 Message-ID: In article , C. Marin Faure wrote: >In article , Chuanga@cris.com (H >Andrew Chuang) wrote: > >> Then, my question is will Boeing feel comfortable leaving the >> over-600-seat market to Airbus? > > >If there IS a 600-plus-seat market. The costs of not only the airplane >but the modifications needed to terminal, ramp, boarding, >customs/immigration, and baggage handling systems to accomodate such >airplanes are staggering. The concept of using LARGER airplanes to >accomodate the growing demand for air transportation because most airports >are hindered from expanding their facilities to accomodate MORE airplanes >is sound, but the practicality and cost-effectiveness of actually >developing the airplanes and making the necessary modifications to the >terminal systems is still very much in question. These arguments have been mentioned many times, and they are certainly very valid arguments. Nevertheless, aren't these arguments similar to the ones that was raised when the B747 was first designed nearly thirty years ago? From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:20 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Jet Engine Containment Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:20 Message-ID: In article , Steven Foister wrote: >One of the certification tests required for all turbofans involves >blowing a small charge near the root of a fan blade whilst the engine is >in operation, causing it to detach. >For the engine to pass the test, the blade needs to be fully contained. >For the new large turbofans, this is an extremely demanding test. Kevlar >is used as part of the containment because of its high tensile strength >and low weight, and Rolls-Royce and Pratt&Witney have both used plenty >of it on their engines to pass this test. >GE however have a much heavier fan blade, which is more difficult to >contain. In order not to confuse some less knowledgeable readers, I would like to point out that Mr. Foister are talking about the PW4084, Trent 800, and GE90. I don't know if the Trent 700 uses Kevlar or not, I'm pretty sure that the PW4168 does not, neither does the CF6. To the best of my knowledge, In spite of the lighter material used in the composite GE90 fan blade, it's heavier than either the PW4084 or the Trent 800 fan blades because of the much larger fan diameter. However, I don't believe it's *much* heavier. >Last I heard (January) their engine for the B777 had still not >passed this test. This one shouldn't be too hard to figure it out, right? The B777 with the GE90 engine has been in service since last November. I believe they passed the containment and bird-strike tests in July, 1995. >They were trying to get a test which involved >detonation half way up the blade (much less demanding) accepted instead. The standard test is to detonate at the root. For the GE90, I believe it's in the flow path, but not half way up the blade. >I believe that the GE90 engine is actually only operating at present on >several such temporary waivers. Misinformation. >Which would make me think twice about getting on a (GE-powered) BA 777. It's reported that China Southern may soon start B777 trans-Pacific services (coincidentally, with the GE90). Initially, they will make a techinical stop in Alaska, but will switch to non-stop when the IGW version is available. I think it'll be very interesting to take a 12-to-13-hour flight across the Pacific on a twin. Irrespective of powerplants, I personally don't feel that comfortable of doing so. From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:20 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: 05 Aug 96 04:21:20 Message-ID: In article bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) writes: >>Aaah, but how do you know that your attitude indicator is not faulty? >>What if the various attitude indicators on board also didn't agree? >>See the problem? They have to identify which instruments they can >>trust. > >It is also worth while to remember that FAR Part 25 requires a complete >set of Standby Instruments which are totally independent of the >'normal' displays. I'm not sure of that, and, in fact, standby instrumentation on most aircraft use pitot/static sources which are part of a common pitot/static system. I.e., not "independent" in the sense that, say, two hydraulic systems are independent. See Peter Ladkin's web page for a description of the 757 pitot-static system (don't have the URL handy, but I'm sure it can found via www.chicago.com). R. From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:21 Message-ID: In article Mark Ingram writes: >As another "airliners" respondent has said, the crew was ACCUSED of doing >this. There NEVER was any proof that they actually did so, however, and >in fact, over several months of intense, many-on-one interrogation, the >three pilots stuck by their vehement denial of having manipulated any >controls or circuit breakers in violation of TWA procedures. As far as I can tell, the original report was not superseded. Yet I distinctly remember some "retrospectives" in Air Line Pilot (the ALPA rag) in which ALPA claimed victory in getting some kind of reversal on this. Does anyone know whether the NTSB reversed itself without replacing the original findings? -- 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 Aug 5 04:21:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:21 Message-ID: In article "Mark A. Brown" writes: >Anyway, the published design limit is the limit to which you can load >up the airframe and it will bend of course, but when you unload it, it >is guaranteed to bend back to its original shape. In order to >guarantee this behaviour there has to be a margin, of course. > >Loading over the design load but under what I recall as the ultimate >load (I may be wrong), the aircraft will bend but when you unload it >is not guaranteed to bend back to its original shape. However, it >shouldn't fall apart. The ultimate load is normally defined as the point at which it'll break. The ultimate load is calculated by applying a fudge factor to the limit load. This fudge factor is normally 1.5, and is normally tested. >Over the ultimate load and not only is it not guaranteed to bend back Here's more than anyone ever wanted to know on it. Sec. 25.305 Strength and deformation. (a) The structure must be able to support limit loads without detrimental permanent deformation. At any load up to limit loads, the deformation may not interfere with safe operation. (b) The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure for at least 3 seconds. However, when proof of strength is shown by dynamic tests simulating actual load conditions, the 3-second limit does not apply. Static tests conducted to ultimate load must include the ultimate deflections and ultimate deformation induced by the loading. When analytical methods are used to show compliance with the ultimate load strength requirements, it must be shown that-- (1) The effects of deformation are not significant; (2) The deformations involved are fully accounted for in the analysis; or (3) The methods and assumptions used are sufficient to cover the effects of these deformations. (c) Where structural flexibility is such that any rate of load application likely to occur in the operating conditions might produce transient stresses appreciably higher than those corresponding to static loads, the effects of this rate of application must be considered. (d) The dynamic response of the airplane to vertical and lateral continuous turbulence must be taken into account. The continuous gust design criteria of Appendix G of this part must be used to establish the dynamic response unless more rational criteria are shown. (e) The airplane must be designed to withstand any vibration and buffeting that might occur in any likely operating condition up to VD/MD, including stall and probable inadvertent excursions beyond the boundaries of the buffet onset envelope. This must be shown by analysis, flight tests, or other tests found necessary by the Administrator. (f) Unless shown to be extremely improbable, the airplane must be designed to withstand any forced structural vibration resulting from any failure, malfunction or adverse condition in the flight control system. These must be considered limit loads and must be investigated at airspeeds up to VC/MC. From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: A brief commentary: vertigo and COPA 201 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:21 Message-ID: In ABrowne@mtl.marconi.ca (Alan Browne) writes: >A B-737 in Latin America took off one night and sometime after reaching >cruise suddenly rolled off and then spiraled into the jungle. >It was later determined that the VG channel had failed. Also both the >captain and FO were tied to the same VG, because one of the VG's was TU. >So as the reference VG failed and the ADI roled over, the pilot counter >rolled to remain level. ...to no avail, so roll even harder...soon they >were in a spiral and never recovered. You are obviously referring to COPA flight 201 in 1992, the topic of the PBS Nova special "The Mysterious Crash of Flight 201. It is available on videotape from PBS for about $25, and well worth it if you have interest in the topic. Yes, it could have been a failed vertical gyro, but since the CVR was inoperative, we can't be sure. This crash kind of falls in line with the unexplained UAL 737-200 at Colorado and USAir 737-300 at Pitt. RD From kls Mon Aug 5 04:21:21 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CLIPS-IMAG, Grenoble, France Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:21 Message-ID: In article (Dans l'article) , don@firstsol.com (don shifris) wrote (crivait): >My other concern is over 'bugs' in this stuff. I have worked in the >computer industry for a long time. People are taught to solve specific >problems in specific ways. The Airbus approach is to use seperate teams, >and seperate hardware to insure this doesn't happen. The problem is that >since these people tend to be educated the same way, they tend to solve >the problem the same way, so it is very likely that the same, possibly >bad, underlying assumption were used in all solutions. I produced a disk >driver for a super minicomputer to address a specific problem. The >manufacturer also produced a disk driver to solve the same problem. Anyone >who looked at the resultant machine code would have concluded that the >same person wrote both. I never did find out who wrote their version, but >I never communicated with him. Food for thought. Airbus use a very clever way (IMO) to solve this. Each (of three) FBW computer are made of two computers of differents architectures : one with a Motorola (68000 maybe), the other one with an Intel (8086 or 8088 ?). The two parts of the computers are made by differents teams and, to avoid communication between the teams, different manufacturers : Thomson and Sextant. For the software I do not remember, but I think that they have used the same principe, the two softwares use different languages, different teams, different manufacturers. What airbus wants to avoid is "common failures" on the two computers, on the same time. These method are not used by all manufacturers, for example the fighter Rafale build bay Dassault have two identical computer with identical software for performance. They use formal specification and some proofs to made them. Never forget that in a fighter you may use the ejectable seat :-) 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 Aug 5 04:21:22 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 05 Aug 96 04:21:22 Message-ID: Francis Jambon replied to Don Shifris: >Airbus use a very clever way (IMO) to solve this. Each (of three) FBW >computer are made of two computers of differents architectures : one with a Motorola (68000 maybe), the other one with an Intel (8086 or 8088 ?). >The two parts of the computers are made by differents teams and, to avoid >communication between the teams, different manufacturers : Thomson and >Sextant. You seem to have entirely missed the point of the article to which you were replying, the key point of which is contained in the following sentence from Don's article: The problem is that since these people tend to be educated the same way, they tend to solve the problem the same way, so it is very likely that the same, possibly bad, underlying assumption were used in all solutions. N.L. Schryer (then of AT&T Bell Laboratories) gave an Invited Talk at the 1992 Summer Usenix in San Antonio, titled A Case Study in Testing: Floating-point Arithmetic. It provided many excellent examples of cases in which surprisingly different designs exhibited similar modes of failure. (This in allegedly well-tested designs, no less!) For example, machines as varied as the Apple ][ Plus and the Cyber 205 exhibit Really Bad Precision for some seemingly simple cases. In another case, implementing "if (x Hong Kong Non-Stop 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: 05 Aug 96 23:32:56 Message-ID: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) wrote: >Apparently, one fuel saving technique being used is the plane is towed to >the runway and engines started in the runup area. Another aspect comes to mind. At one point the carriers were very concerned about long, heavy taxis on hot days; tires were not standing up well. I wonder if towing is less of a load -- the tug does the braking, for example. There's recurring interest in runup area deicing. Maybe its summer use is mist-ers to cool the tires, pre takeoff roll.. -- 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 Mon Aug 5 23:32:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dahler@iglobal.net (Chris Dahler) Subject: Re: O'Hare -> Hong Kong Non-Stop Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet Global Services, Inc. Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:56 Message-ID: >I've always wondered why airports don't provide towing service to/from >the runway. It seems that a lot of fuel is wasted having airplanes taxing >all over the ground under their own power. Can anybody provide some >numbers as to how much (in gallons and/or $) this costs? On the 727, our flight plans include a 500 pound taxi allowance in the minimum required fuel number. Sometimes we burn a little less, sometimes a lot more (get in line at EWR and you can waste 2000 pounds or more!), but the 500 pound number is a good average. That's about 75 gallons, give or take a few. The cost of jet fuel varies widely depending on where you are: that could be over $100 or less than $50. I'd bet the cost of manpower and equipment that it would take to tow every airplane out to the runway would at least equal if not exceed this cost. There's also the damage that you would do to the engines: jet engines need a little time to warm up before you run them up to takeoff thrust: if you make a habit of shoving the throttles up just as soon as you start them, you'll trash them pretty quick. They need a few minutes at idle to get everything operating at the same temperature. CD From kls Mon Aug 5 23:32:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdk@apk.net (John Knopp) Subject: Re: Procedure after Engine Fire Warning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: APK Net, Ltd. Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:57 Message-ID: GWilson404@aol.com wrote: >As a practicing aeronautical engineer I am debating with my Operations >colleagues the correct procedure in response to an Engine Fire Warning if the >warning goes away prior to shutting the engine down. My view would be that >you shut down anyway and isolate fuel, hydraulics etc. My pilot friends say >if the warning goes away at idle it was just a hot gas leak and they would >continue with that engine at idle. Any views? Your friends in Ops are correct: We are trained to continue operation of the engine at idle (or below whatever throttle setting the warning stopped) if the warning ceases prior to shutdown. An engine at idle can still produce enough RPM for a hydraulic pump as well as providing air for the pressurization system. - John Knopp jdk@apk.net From kls Mon Aug 5 23:32:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rob Subject: Re: Procedure after Engine Fire Warning Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: TaC Ltd. Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:57 Message-ID: In civil airliners such as the B747 the air ducting from the APU to the main distribution manifold, and also the main ducting in the wing leading edges, all have overheat detection wires running parallel to the duct. My experience of the 747 is that the "duct leak" messages (on the 747-400) are fairly common, but normally are a genuine air leak, normally in the "centre duct" section, often in the air conditioning area. Assisted engine starts are allowed in flight, depends on alltitude mainly whether the starter is utilised or windmill start is used. Regards From kls Mon Aug 5 23:32:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Henry Law Subject: ATR42 handling Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:57 Message-ID: In the August 1996 issue of the UK magazine "Pilot" an interesting article on the ATR42 is published over the name of one Andy Foan. In it he tells of a successful aeroplane, but expresses the opinion that its success is pretty much for commercial reasons rather than for the excellence of the airframe. For example his opening paragraph: "Ghastly! I've been trying to think of a word that adequately describes the handling of this aeroplane and that is undoubtedly it" ".. the pitch control is passable but the roll control is awful ..." "... the yaw control defies description. The rudder has such a time lag between operation and reaction that you sometimes wonder if you are in the same aeroplane." Can this be so? My only flights in an ATR have been with Continental from Newark to Syracuse and back; as I remember on the outbound flight we broke cloud pretty much overhead the airfield and the approach consisted of a steep diving turn through about 270 degrees and 5000' (??? I'm only a passenger) to land - I almost expected to see arrester gear on the tarmac - and that doesn't seem to square with the description above. BTW in fairness to Mr Foan; he does go on to say "This aircraft may have handling which can fairly be described as 'barely adequate' but in truth that is all it needs to be. ... this is a very serious little airliner .. in spite of the poor handling I enjoy flying it." And it's a very interesting piece. -- Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Mon Aug 5 23:32:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Ingram Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:57 Message-ID: On 4 Aug 1996, RD Rick wrote: > There is also the Zoche aero diesel that has been shown at Oshkosh > probably every year since 1985, when I saw it. Herr Zoche is the > (West) German who has been trying to get this thing off the ground, > so to speak. As I remember, it is a 4 cyl radial, and possibly > aircooled. He claimed a very impressive power to weight ratio. > > I don't know the current status, but I believe it became a bit of a > joke in EAA circles. I saw what almost certainly was this same engine at Oshkosh '83. It did *look* impressive. Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) [Shell Test Account] From kls Mon Aug 5 23:32:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) 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: 05 Aug 96 23:32:57 Message-ID: brians368@aol.com (Brian S368) writes: [can't fit long wings...] >What about the much-publicized fold up wing design optioned on the 777? It always seemed to me that what you want to do is fold the wing DOWN not up. The structual reason is obvious. The hassle is you can only fold it far enough out so it won't drag on the ground ;-} -- 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 Mon Aug 5 23:32:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: phipps@ionet.net (James Phipps) Subject: Re: Causes and solutions for window crazing. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: IONet Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:58 Message-ID: In article , slacker@arlut.utexas.edu says... >Are they not a safety item? I really wonder about this. Isn't it likely that >the scratches could eventually lead to stress fractures as the windows flex >during pressure cycles? Or is this simply not a problem in the case of the >window material? Yes, scratches do lead to crazing of airliner cabin windows. The windows can also craze as a result of several thousand pressure cycles. Chemical reactions between water, sulfuric acid and the acrylic material can rapidly promote crazing. Cabin windows routinely flex as much as 0.25" during pressure cycles. I have intentionally induced craze in acrylic cabin windows on a test stand. I was able to cause a severally crazed window to fail (blow apart) after it had flexed 0.75" at a pressure 10 times that of normal pressure differential at altitude. Cabin windows are not considered by the FAA to be a critical components of the airframe. (As a passenger, I would strongly argue that they are critical!) Remember, there is a fail-safe window pane (the inner one with the vent hole at the bottom) to take the place of the outer pane if it happens to fail. And this fail-safe pane is rarely crazed, cracked or scratched. As long as the maintenance inspectors can see through the window, they normally won't remove the window until a D check. It's a matter of economics for the airlines. Cabin windows, which are made of acrylic, can be repaired by removing the pits, scratches and crazing. This can be done by removing material from the window. Most repair stations will polish the windows to do this. My company machines the material off the window. When we are done, it looks like, and basically is, a new window. Cabin windows are good for 2 to 3 repairs. If you saw good windows manufactured in 1987, chances are they have been repaired. Normally, most cabin windows start to have noticeable crazing after 2 years. The crazing gets so bad after 4 or 5 years, that the window will need replaced. This usually corresponds to the aircraft going through a D check. In summary, crazing is more of an aesthetic issue than a safety issue. If airlines care that their passengers can see through a window, they will spend the extra effort and money to keep them in good shape. If your flight has bad windows, let the airlines know. I do! James Phipps phipps@ionet.net Manufacturing Engineer NORDAM Transparency Division - Tulsa "I only do windows." From kls Mon Aug 5 23:32:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alun Jenkins Subject: Re: Causes and solutions for window crazing. Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Jenisys Ltd Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:58 Message-ID: Hi, I used to work for BA in their 747 Mtce depot. We removed the windows and polished them to make them clear again. I think that the crazing is mainly on the surface and does not impact safety at all. Therefore polishing them is mainly a cosmetic operation. (And a costly one at that, to remove the panes you need to stip out the cladding inside and remove about 10 Bolts, there is also a risk that they wont be reseated correctly or wiring my be nicked.) Each time they are removed they are measured to make sure they are not too thin!. I was told that the crazing was caused by H2S04 (Sulphuric Acid) formed by the Sulpher Dioxide ejected from volcanic eruptions. BTW When I worked for BA we used to polish the whole plane, front to back with aeroclean (T-Cut for aircraft). I think we found that this actually improved the economy of the aircraft (smoothing the surface) and the customers really liked getting a nice shiny 'plane back. When airlines do a paint Job they usually remove the panes, although this does not seem to always be the case. Alun From kls Mon Aug 5 23:32:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@mallard.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: A/C Nicknames (was Re: Boeing Pronunciation) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:58 Message-ID: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >> Now I have a question in a similar vein: Is it an Em Dee Eleven? ks> At the risk of opening a huge new can of worms, that's what I call ks> it when I don't refer to it as a Mad Dog. (I call the DC-10 the Some mechanic associates of mine call it (MD11) a "Scud", because you never know where it's going to land (it acquired this name during the introduction to service, which had the standard "teething" problems.) Lest anyone accuse me of Douglas bashing, I happen to prefer the DC10/MD11 for widebody travel as a passenger. If feels less cramped, to me, especially if you're travelling as a party of two, and you get one of the window/aisle pairs. Ditto for the 2 seat side of the DC9/MD80. Not that I would pass up Row 17 on a UA B757 for either of these... ks> non-Boeing planes, I call the older 747s, with the original three ks> window configuration of the upper deck, Three Holers, and don't ks> view them with very much more enthusiasm than a similarly named ks> outhouse. :-) ) That's interesting - I've heard "Three Holer" refer to the B727, for obvious reasons. ed -------- Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Mon Aug 5 23:32:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:58 Message-ID: Dave Benjamin wrote: >Let me say up front that the MD-80 is among my favorite airliners to fly >But I can't get over the far aft positioning of the wings, negative >incidence of the stab, and positive incidence of the thrust. How do all >of these combine to make the MD-80 an efficient flying machine (or do >they not)? As one of the more vocal MD-80 haters around, I'll stand up and defend it :-) It *is* a pretty efficient machine. The rearward placement of the wings is simply a result of the rearward placement of the engines. The engines themselves are a relatively efficient design. It doesn't have THE most efficient wing, THE most efficient engine, etc., but its a good combination overall. What it lacks in efficiency in the air, it tends to make up for in its reliability and apparently good serviceability (any airline mechanics here who can comment on that?). No doubt it could be more efficient if it had been designed from scratch as a 150+ pax airliner instead of being a mercilessly stretched DC-9, but all in all its done well for itself. But I still smash my head everytime I stand up in one :-) -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Mon Aug 5 23:32:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: More radial engine talk... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:58 Message-ID: Recently, we discussed the turbo-compound radials of the '50s as used in Starliners and DC7-C aircraft. In another current thread, the following comment was made: >NAC gets their DC-6's ex-USAF from Davis-Mothan. The mods include >modern avionics. When a plane reaches its 10,000 hour life limit, they >part it and go get another, transferring avionics, etc. They get a >very respectable 2,500 between overhauls of the R-2800 engines. And >this with 100LL (lotsa lead) in lieu of 115-145. Being a nut about anything old and mechanical, I'm naturally fascinated by the radials. What were some of the radials, like the R-2800, that were known for reliability? There is a Confederate Air Force A-26 Invader (The 'Spirit of Waco') that shows up at almost every air show in my area, and also a B-25 (The 'Yellow Rose') which shows up frequently. I generally manage to talk to the crews. Sometime's I'm extra lucky and get to talk to a mechanic instead of a pilot :-) Anyway, the story on 'Spirit of Waco' is that they more or less "turn the key and go" on her R2800s, with surprisingly little trouble. They run 100LL, and sometimes get lucky and find a stash higher octane fuel at show sites (apparently, a topping off with fuel is one of the perks of bringing the bird to some airshows), but so long as they watch the manifold pressure, run rich, and go easy they tend not to have much trouble. When they do attend a show, they will sometimes take the plane up 2 or 3 times in a day- they really don't hesitate to fly it. On the other hand, almost every time I've talked to 'Yellow Rose' crew members, there is a sad story of trying to find yet another rebuildable Wright R-2600, or having a freshly rebuilt engine on the wing but not performing well at all (freauently, the nacelle is open and tinkerings are occurring at the show itself). In practice, were the R-2600's that much more trouble prone, or is it just that there are fewer Wright's left around today? Flipping through Janes, it looks like the 2800 was a far more common choice for airliners than was the 2600, so 2800 parts are probably more common. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Mon Aug 5 23:32:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@netcom.com (Pete Coe) Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 05 Aug 96 23:32:59 Message-ID: Steve Lacker writes: >Graham Glen wrote: >>In article , Don Stokes >> >>Your quite right, I'm sorry I was going from memory rather than >>checking. Series 1 & 2S Comets had Ghosts. >> >>>I don't believe the preferred engies were Conways -- they didn't turn up >>>until the 707 era. The RR engines proposed for for the Comet 1 were pure >>>turbojets like the Ghosts; Conways are fans. >>>I'm not sure about the Comet 4; they may have had Conways. >> >>No, they had Avons as well. Mk 117 (7,300lb st) for the series 2 Comets, >>Mark 502 (10,000lb st) for series 3 and Mark 524 (10,500lb st) for >>series 4. (I did check this time!) >My 1989 issue of "Jane's World Aircraft" lists the Nimrod (military development >of the Comet) as having Spey engines. Were the Nimrods built with Speys, or was >this a re-engining operation? The Nimrod, whilst based on the Comet is actually quite a bit bigger. It's certainly longer and also has a double-bubble fuselage, whilst the Comets' all had an oval one. Apart from the need for a more modern power plant, the Nimrods also probably needed more power. I have a 1964 Jane's at home, so if you want the full data on the Comet I can find it eventually. From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Jet Engine Containment Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:45 Message-ID: >Kevlar wrap is provided around the fan case to contain fan blades. It is >lighter in weight than armour plate but requires a clearance to allow for the >elastic expansion/contraction of the Kevlar as it catches a blade. I know it >is used on CF34-3A/B in Canadair RJ/Challenger and on BR710 in Gulfstream >V/Global Express as well as on some variants of RB 211. Qantas have the Kevlar rap on it's CF6 powered 767-300s but there is no Kevlar rap on any of its RB211s (D4s or G2s). I have seen it on Cathay's Trent-powered 777. Simon Craig -- To get random signatures put text files into a folder called 3Random Signatures2 into your Preferences folder. From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: More radial engine talk... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: ISFSI Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:45 Message-ID: Steve Lacker wrote: >In practice, were the R-2600's that much more trouble prone, or is it >just that there are fewer Wright's left around today? Flipping through Janes, >it looks like the 2800 was a far more common choice for airliners than was the >2600, so 2800 parts are probably more common. The Wright R-2600 Cyclone was basically a war-time engine, with over 50,000 examples, at approx 1,700 hp, built in the Cincinnati plant alone, followed by the BB-series at 1,900 in 1944. Production of all 2600s stopped at VJ-day. Wright had already developed the R-3350 Duplex Cyclone or Cyclone 18, back in 1936, and that became Wright's postwar engine. Pratt & Whitney dropped its R-2180 Twin-Hornet, 1,400 hp on test in 1935, as soon as Wright started testing its R-2600, and enlarged its own R-2600 into the R-2800 Double Wasp; production of the latter continued post-war. From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:45 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: inflight laptop power Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:45 Message-ID: Delta reportedly is or will soon be testing a laptop power source supplied by Olin Aerospace in the First Class cabin of their "Spirit of Delta" 767. -- 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 Aug 8 12:11:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pillutla@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com (Ramesh Pillutla) Subject: Physics Question Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Alcatel Network Systems Inc. Reply-To: pillutla@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:46 Message-ID: Hi everyone, here's the scenario: How does a fully-loaded 747 maintain it's speed, altitude and engine power settings over a long flight like LAX-SYDNEY. Fuel is constantly being burned off which implies that the weight of the aircraft is constantly changing. If the weight is constantly changing, isn't the center of gravity constantly changing. Alos, is fuel burned equally from both the port/starboard fuel tanks in the wings to avoid an imbalance ? The law of conservation of momentum states that for a body moving with a certain velocity, changing the mass will result in change in velocity to conserve momentum. The intuitive conclusion is that the auto-pilot actually adjusts the engine power settings to account for the mass of expended fuel. To all experts out there, I would appreciate any inputs, Ramesh From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:46 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: marzuola@great-gray.owlnet.rice.edu (Steven Joseph Marzuola) Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rice University Reply-To: marzuola@owlnet.rice.edu Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:46 Message-ID: : On 29 Jul 1996, Ian Kershaw wrote: : : > Tex Johnson, test pilot at Boeing rolled the prototype 707 over Seattle : > in from of asembled crowds watching the power boat races. The maneuver : > actually has the plane in a 1g state all the way round. I was told early in my piloting days that a pilot intentionally rolled a 747 at night while crossing the Atlantic with a load of passengers, on a bet with his co-pilot, and nobody in back ever noticed. Whether anybody would actually do this, I sincerely doubt. But for years I wondered whether it was possible. The topic of such a 1g roll arose sometime a year or two ago in another newsgroup. I put pencil to paper, and did what I believed was all of the math necessary to answer the question: How much altitude would an aircraft lose during a "true 1g roll"? The answer is, the same as it would lose during a free fall during the same length of time, i.e. 1/2*g*t^2. However, somebody else pointed an omission on my part, and we determined that the downward velocity at the end of the roll would also be the same as that at the end of a free fall, that is, g*t. Furthermore, this speed will always increase. It will be impossible to stop the downward motion without applying *more* than 1g. Playing with it some more: Given a aircraft, initially in level flight, that undergoes a 360 degree roll, while keeping its fuselage essentially horizontal: It is impossible to execute this maneuver so that a passenger inside always feels between 0 and 1g, pulling her/him straight "down" (to the floor of the plane), without eventually colliding with the ground. I can dig up and post my calculations (just a little calculus). In summary, whatever Tex Johnson did, he experienced either negative g's or positive g's greater than 1, or both. Any comments? -- Steve Marzuola (marzuola@owlnet.rice.edu) The race is not always to the swiftest, nor the contest always to the strong, but that's the way to bet. From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:47 Message-ID: >When the A&P's jacked up the a/c, the main gear fell off. This is one of the most dubious sounding statements I have seen. For the gear to absorb a landing and then "fall off" after a/c jacking is carried out is outrageous. Simon Craig -- To get random signatures put text files into a folder called 3Random Signatures2 into your Preferences folder. From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:47 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jveen@tincan.tincan.org (John van Veen) Subject: Re: barrel roll in 727 ?!! 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: 08 Aug 96 12:11:47 Message-ID: In a previous article, markt@mickey.mo-net.com (Mark Ingram) says: >The aircraft's FDR did confirm the roll and subsequent loss of altitude, >as described above. Captain Gibson's cool-headed response to a >disaster-in-the-making, however, could easily be called heroic. Captain Gibson did send a letter to Aviation Week telling his side of the story. The only parts I remember are: 1) He did the barrel roll to maintain a positive G force in the cabin to keep everyone in their seats. 2) It was that positive G force that had everyone at the NTSB so confused. It concealed the barrel roll from the FDR. John From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: Jay Blosser Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Lockheed Martin Control Systems Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:48 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > > --- snip ---- > > For what it's worth, on the 777, Boeing started off with a similar > strategy, but ended up abandoning both hardware and software diver- > sity. Instead of spending several times as much money to support > several development efforts, they spent the money saved on doing more > rigorous review and testing of the software. It remains to be seen > whether the result was better, worse, or just different, but at least > they didn't bet on an illusion of diversity. I may be wrong, but I'm under the impression that the 777 Primary Flight Computers employ three different CPU's per channel (68040, 80486, ???) but all are programmed in the same high-level language (Ada ?). Rumor has it that Boeing backed out of dis-similar software in the PFC when they saw its expense and realized the marginal effectiveness of the generic fault immunity that it provided. Jay Blosser All opinions are my own and are not intended to reflect those of others, including my employer. From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: Neil Bolger Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Client of Intenet Portal Services Reply-To: "http://www2.portal.ca/~urbanpre/airneil.html"@thoth.portal.ca Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:48 Message-ID: MikeM727 wrote: > >The Airbus has a safety feature that only allows a pilot to pull the > >maximum g-limit of the airplane- no more. Why would you want to > >overstress the airframe? > > What if a situation arises where the only way out requires overstressing > the airplane? This could be recovery from unusual attitudes, or evasive > action to avoid traffic or terrain. There have been accidents where the > the airframe was overstressed in order to recover. For certification, the > airframe must withstand 150% of published G-limits without failure. > Someday that extra 50% percent may be needed. From what I've read, Airbus > FBW doesn't give you that option, even in direct law. I don't know about > Boeing's FBW. What about a stall? Do you ever want to stall a large commercial airliner other than during initial flight tests? I would think it would be highly beneficial to never be able to stall a plane but to go right to the maximum angle of attack, and to have the computer advance the throttles, etc. What do you experienced people have to say about this? Are there any other situations where you would always want the computer to stop you? Neil Bolger http://www2.portal.ca/~urbanpre/airneil.html From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:48 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: James Horan Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Horan Document Laboratory Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:48 Message-ID: MikeM727 wrote: > >The Airbus has a safety feature that only allows a pilot to pull the > >maximum g-limit of the airplane- no more. Why would you want to > >overstress the airframe? > > What if a situation arises where the only way out requires overstressing > the airplane? This could be recovery from unusual attitudes, or evasive > action to avoid traffic or terrain. There have been accidents where the > the airframe was overstressed in order to recover. For certification, the > airframe must withstand 150% of published G-limits without failure. > Someday that extra 50% percent may be needed. From what I've read, Airbus > FBW doesn't give you that option, even in direct law. I don't know about > Boeing's FBW. I would certainly guess that there is a more that 50% extra in a lot of areas. I recall one old job shop engineer that I worked with who was looking at some wreckage from a B-1. He said that he thought that anything that was left together after a crash was overdesigned because planes are made to fly not crash. Time and time again aircraft are subjected to much higher loads than any designer anticipated and they held up. I recall a B-52G back in the mid-80's when I was at Boeing Wichita that had a vertical fin blown off by a gust that was approximately 5 times the Mil-Spec load. It probably failed at around 3x. Also remember there are two sets of loads yield and ultimate. You may bend the aircraft but not break it. I would much rather land on a bent aircraft that is no longer airworthy then crash on an airplane that would be otherwise flight worthy but for the fact that it smacked into the ground. James P. Horan, Esq. Staten Island, NY From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: joachim@softouch.bc.ca (Joachim Achtzehnter) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Softouch Scheduling, Inc. Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:49 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > Francis Jambon replied to Don Shifris: > > > Airbus use a very clever way... > > made of two computers of different architectures... > > made by differents teams... > > different manufacturers... > > You seem to have entirely missed the point... > > Far from being clever, the Airbus approach foolishly fosters a false > sense of security. > > Boeing ... they spent the money saved on doing more > rigorous review and testing of the software... but at least > they didn't bet on an illusion of diversity. This discussion would benefit if people dropped their respective biases for or against Boeing/Airbus and US versus European aircraft manufacturers. The real point is that a sensible approach to fault tolerance does both: Use rigorous control over design and implementation with extensive test programs, and try to limit common failure modes of redundant parts of the system. Using different people to build the redundant parts certainly REDUCES the likelihood of common failure modes. I don't think anybody would claim otherwise. In terms of "illusion": both approaches can result in complacency if one isn't careful. Neither rigorous control nor redundancy can guarantee 100% safety. Both are useful to improve safety. So rather than jump on people with phrases like "missing the point", "foolishly", etc. lets foster the open discussion of diverse approaches to achieve safety. Joachim -- joachim@softouch.bc.ca (work) joachim@wimsey.ca (home) From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:49 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:49 Message-ID: >This discussion would benefit if people dropped their respective biases >for or against Boeing/Airbus and US versus European aircraft manufacturers. Why is it that whenever anyone says anything that might in any way be taken as negative to Airbus, all the Airbus fanatics start jumping up and down about "US vs Europe?" This seems to happen even with both Airbus and McDonnell-Douglas are compared to Boeing -- I guess MacDAC must be European and not US. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." >The real point is that a sensible approach to fault tolerance does both: >Use rigorous control over design and implementation with extensive test >programs, and try to limit common failure modes of redundant parts of the >system. >Using different people to build the redundant parts certainly REDUCES the >likelihood of common failure modes. I don't think anybody would claim >otherwise. Unfortunately, we do not live in a theoretical world devoid of costs. Doing so costs roughly twice as much, yet it's not clear that there is a *substantial* reduction in common failure modes. Indeed, the higher complexity may result in a net loss in reliability of the system. -- 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 Aug 8 12:11:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back From: Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:50 Message-ID: In article , Francis JAMBON wrote: >In article (Dans l'article) , >don@firstsol.com (don shifris) wrote (crivait): > >>My other concern is over 'bugs' in this stuff. I have worked in the >>computer industry for a long time. People are taught to solve specific >>problems in specific ways. The Airbus approach is to use seperate teams, >>and seperate hardware to insure this doesn't happen. The problem is that >>since these people tend to be educated the same way, they tend to solve >>the problem the same way, so it is very likely that the same, possibly >>bad, underlying assumption were used in all solutions. >Airbus use a very clever way (IMO) to solve this. Each (of three) FBW >computer are made of two computers of differents architectures : one with >a Motorola (68000 maybe), the other one with an Intel (8086 or 8088 ?). >The two parts of the computers are made by differents teams and, to avoid >communication between the teams, different manufacturers : Thomson and >Sextant. The point remains. Heck, I use the _same_ code on different computers with different architectures and even different operating systems, with only minor if any changes -- the differences in the systems doesn't change the picture much at all. Even using different languages, one can use the same algorithms. What using different architectures means is that you're unlikely to get the same erroneous sequence of instructions from some common compiler bug cropping up, but little better than that. Somewhere in my cookie file is the quote: For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong. As long as you are trying to achieve the same thing, you're going to have to use, out of necessity, use the same or at least similar algorithms, and two people can jump to the same erroneous conclusion. I'm not saying that the multiple systems approach is invalid. I am saying that one should _not_ rely on it alone to produce correct code. Formal methods should _also_ be used. >the same time. These method are not used by all manufacturers, for example >the fighter Rafale build bay Dassault have two identical computer with >identical software for performance. They use formal specification and some >proofs to made them. Never forget that in a fighter you may use the >ejectable seat :-) You _don't_ want to use the ejection seat. An ejection seat is something that you use when faced with the prospect of certain death if you remain with the aircraft, as opposed to probable death if you bail out. They're fitted into combat aircraft simply because flying a combat aircraft is _dangerous_ -- in combat you have human beings actively out to destroy your craft, something commercial pilots generally don't have to deal with. The nature of making an aircraft maneuverable enough for combat also makes it more susceptible to failure. For example, fighters and small bombers glide like bricks whereas any commercial transport can be safely deadsticked to a landing (given a suitable site and a certain amount of luck). -- 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 Thu Aug 8 12:11:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation 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: 08 Aug 96 12:11:50 Message-ID: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>Now I have a question in a similar vein: Is it an Em Dee Eleven? I call it a DC-10+....... I won't set foot in them, either.. -- 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 Aug 8 12:11:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: A/C Nicknames (was Re: Boeing Pronunciation) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:50 Message-ID: In ehahn@mallard.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) writes: >... non-Boeing planes, I call the older 747s, with the original three >ks> window configuration of the upper deck, Three Holers, and don't >ks> view them with very much more enthusiasm than a similarly named >ks> outhouse. :-) ) > >That's interesting - I've heard "Three Holer" refer to the B727, for >obvious reasons. Mexicana calls the 727 a Boeing Tri-Motor. (They used to fly Ford Tri-motors). They also called the DC-10 a Douglas Tri-motor. AeroMexico calls the DC-9 a DC-3 Jet. Alaska A/L calls the 737-200 the Mudhen, for where it goes. Then there's the Scarebus (A320), and BUFF and SLUFF, etc. RD From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:51 Message-ID: In article , tymogee@aol.com (TymOgee) wrote: > (As I was going to St. Ives......................) > > For what it's worth, I grew up with "Seven-Oh-Twenty-Thirty-ect. Seven. > The 777 is the triple seven. Now that I'm getting into the business, I > have switched to saying Seven Two, Seven Three..............ect. > > Now I have a question in a similar vein: Is it an Em Dee Eleven? I have always heard it pronounced that way (Em-Dee-Eleven), and that's what we call it at Boeing, but I don't know what the people at Douglas say. Of course, we also call McDonnell-Douglas "Mac-Dac," so who knows if we're right on the MD-11 or not? I don't know what else you'd call it though. The "Em-Dee-One-One?" C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:51 Message-ID: Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >Now I have a question in a similar vein: Is it an Em Dee Eleven? : At the risk of opening a huge new can of worms, that's what I call it : when I don't refer to it as a Mad Dog. (I call the DC-10 the Death : Crate, a name borrowed from a friend who prefers to remain anonymous. : FBW Airbuses are Lumberjacks, which I picked up from a 737 captain -- : I'm sure she and her employer would also prefer anonymity. Lest I be : accused of reserving disparaging terms for non-Boeing planes, I call : the older 747s, with the original three window configuration of the : upper deck, Three Holers, and don't view them with very much more : enthusiasm than a similarly named outhouse. :-) ) L-1011 : Swamp Buggy (An Eastern Tristar crashed in the Everglades) Has anybody come up with a nick for the A320 after the accident at Basle-Mulhouse? Or is that were the 'Lumberjack' came from? My entry : Tree-clipper :-) -- Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE* FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus- From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:52 Message-ID: >> The OFFICIAL pronunciation of our airplane family is: Seven-Oh-Seven, >> Seven-One-Seven, Seven-Two-Seven, Seven-Three-Seven, Seven-Four-Seven, [snip] > But I *have* heard the abreviated seven-seven, as in four-seven and >five-seven. What's in a name? :-) I've watched a few Boeing videos (from the early 70s) that are narrated as "seven forty seven." No one at Qantas pronounces it like that tho, just seven four seven, etc. Often, we use the 1st 2 numbers as well, ie seven four, seven three, seven six, but I have not heard the use of the last 2 numbers. Simon Craig (QF) -- To get random signatures put text files into a folder called 3Random Signatures2 into your Preferences folder. From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Boeing Pronunciation Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:52 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>Now I have a question in a similar vein: Is it an Em Dee Eleven? > >At the risk of opening a huge new can of worms, that's what I call it >when I don't refer to it as a Mad Dog. (I call the DC-10 the Death >Crate... I've always called them Death Cruisers or Maintenance Disasters... >accused of reserving disparaging terms for non-Boeing planes, I call >the older 747s, with the original three window configuration of the >upper deck, Three Holers, Anything older than a 400 is referred to as a Dinosaur at my work (QF) Simon Craig -- To get random signatures put text files into a folder called 3Random Signatures2 into your Preferences folder. From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fintubi@navier.stanford.edu (Bill Urban) Subject: 737 NACA inlet with moving parts? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:52 Message-ID: On certain 737s, I've noticed that a NACA duct near the rear of the fuselage (right side, I believe) seems to have a mechanized piece which folds out away from the a/c, rather than the usual 'passive' design familiar from other planes (and race cars). Is this the inlet for the APU? How, when, and why does it operate? Just curious, Bill longtime lurker, 1st-time poster -- Bill Urban fintubi@navier.stanford.edu (415) 723-0560 High Temperature Gasdynamics Laboratory, Stanford University From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:53 Message-ID: In Steve Lacker writes: >...It *is* a pretty efficient machine. The rearward placement of the >wings is>simply a result of the rearward placement of the engines. The >engines>themselves are a relatively efficient design. It doesn't have >THE most>efficient wing, THE most efficient engine, etc., but its a >good combination>overall. What it lacks in efficiency in the air, it >tends to make up for in its>reliability and apparently good >serviceability (any airline mechanics here who>can comment on that?). >No doubt it could be more efficient if it had been>designed from >scratch as a 150+ pax airliner instead of being a mercilessly >stretched DC-9, but all in all its done well for itself. It was the heavy weight of the new JT8D-217 engines that caused the big stretch forward of the wing in the MD-80. Before the two recent 757 crashes, the MD-80 was second in safety. It must be in first place now. The PSA avionics techs bitched long and hard when the first MD-80's were added to their all-727 fleet. Avionics bay too small, etc. You should have heard them when the BAe-146 arrived.. Pure misery. Reno Air seems quite happy with the reliability and maintainability of their all MD-80 fleet. Alaska A/L, OTH, has serious problems with belly corrosion, etc., and find it very unreliable compared to their 737-400 fleet. From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:53 Message-ID: >Reno Air seems quite happy with the reliability and maintainability >of their all MD-80 fleet. *Almost* all MD-80 -- they now have several MD-90s. >Alaska A/L, OTH, has serious problems with belly corrosion, etc., and >find it very unreliable compared to their 737-400 fleet. Perhaps that's why they plan on going to an all-737 fleet within the next few years. -- 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 Aug 8 12:11:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:53 Message-ID: In article , Dave Benjamin wrote: > Let me say up front that the MD-80 is among my favorite airliners to fly > in -- very quiet up front (not so in the rear, but I can normally avoid > the aft rows), good T/O and climb performance, POWERFUL flaps. > > But I can't get over the far aft positioning of the wings, negative > incidence of the stab, and positive incidence of the thrust. How do all > of these combine to make the MD-80 an efficient flying machine (or do > they not)? I've had MD-80 pilots for an airline that will remain nameless say that under certain c/g conditions, they run out of elevator up-trim on final approach. As a result, they have to physically horse the nose up for the flare, such as it is. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011 Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:54 Message-ID: >apparently good serviceability (any airline mechanics here who >can comment on that?) I can and I think you'll find that most mechanics that have had an oppurtunity to work on any MD product versus Boeing (we'll just talk narrow-body here) will think that the MD product is a big pain in the butt, in general, to work on. Like anything they each have there good and bad points. *AC Packs - Boeing's system is better. Placing the components in the belly is much better than hanging them from the top of the tail cone as MD has done. It is very difficult to work on a MD pack. The tail cone is always dark, hot and hard to move around in. Also the MD AC system doesn't cool as well as the Boeings. *Pneumatic System - Again Boeing has the edge, with components located on the engine or in the airstair area on a 727. The MD system is more complicated and the augmentation valve is located at the bottom of that damn tail cone. *Hydraulic System - servicing is more difficult on the MD product. Working on the MD components is difficult since they are located in the wheel well and you have to stand on the curved and always slippery gear-door. Not to be outdone though, the 727 'B' pumps are located in a miserable location and are not easy to deal with. *APU - Terrible on a MD, with the apu exhaust duct going through the right half of the tail cone. That makes it that much harder to do anything in the tail cone. The 737 APU installation is far from perfect though. Oil servicing is unreal and working on the thing requires the removal of the large, stainles-steel "bath tub" that surrounds it. 727 APU installation is the best of the three, but also far from ideal. The 757/767 are the one's to copy here. *Flight Controls - much simpler on an MD, but just doesn't seem right to fly an airplane that big with control tabs. *Electrical System - goofy use of Cross-tie relay on the MD. Power center located behind FC FA seat is bad. Changing power relays is a big chore. Simpler and easier to understand system on the Boeings. MD also has a habit of hiding relays and circuit breakers in odd and inaccessable places *Standby Compass - requires use of glareshield mounted mirrors to use on the MD (extra cheesy!) Lot's better on the Boeings. *Main Gear Downlock Spotlights - horrible on the MD. No excuse for this. *Crew Seats - Much better on an MD than that over-engineered stuff found on the 727 and 737. Seems newer 737s have the same seats that the later MDs have. IMHO. From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:54 Message-ID: In article , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > In article , > C. Marin Faure wrote: > >In article , Chuanga@cris.com (H > >Andrew Chuang) wrote: > > > >> Then, my question is will Boeing feel comfortable leaving the > >> over-600-seat market to Airbus? > > > > > >If there IS a 600-plus-seat market. The costs of not only the airplane > >but the modifications needed to terminal, ramp, boarding, > >customs/immigration, and baggage handling systems to accomodate such > >airplanes are staggering. The concept of using LARGER airplanes to > >accomodate the growing demand for air transportation because most airports > >are hindered from expanding their facilities to accomodate MORE airplanes > >is sound, but the practicality and cost-effectiveness of actually > >developing the airplanes and making the necessary modifications to the > >terminal systems is still very much in question. > > These arguments have been mentioned many times, and they are certainly > very valid arguments. Nevertheless, aren't these arguments similar to > the ones that was raised when the B747 was first designed nearly thirty > years ago? Yes, they are. However, the cost of new equipment was not as critical an item back then as it is now. The airlines were regulated, which more or less guaranteed that they would make a profit of some sort unless they totally mismanaged their company, or if other economic factors seriously eroded the demand for air travel. Today, reducing the cost of an airplane is the number one priority in the airframe manufacturing industry. So the purchase price of new equipment seems to play a much larger role in the buying decision than it used to. It also is much more difficult to get approval for airport improvement projects today than it was back in the pre-747 days. While the concept of flying larger airplanes and therefor fewer airplanes is a good one, the reality is that the increasing demand for air transportation will not see any reduction in flights as a result of the introduction of larger airplanes. There will just be that many more people flying, which in turn will lead to the need to improve or expand airports, something that's getting harder and harder to do. On the other hand, the limited number of slots available to airlines and that same difficulty of enlarging airports make the concept of a larger airplane quite desirable with SOME airlines. The big question is, are there ENOUGH airlines willing to sign up for the A-3XX or the 747-X to make going ahead with the program(s) worthwhile? Neither manufacturer is going to build anything if the total number of orders is only a handful of airplanes. This is what killed off the Very Large Airplane project. The machine itself made sense, assuming the airports could be modified to accomodate the plane, but there would never have been more than ten or twenty airplanes required. No one would have made any money making it. The same question exists at this point about the A-3XX and 747-X. I'm not saying these airplanes, or at least one of them, won't be built. I'm just saying the jury is still out. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:55 Message-ID: In article , brians368@aol.com (Brian S368) wrote: > What about the much-publicized fold up wing design optioned on the 777? > It is already in use with military jet (to save room on aircraft carriers, > I think). I don't think it has been ordered by any 777 purchaser (too > much extra $, unneeded?). The fold up wing would seem to solve the > problem. The fold-up wing was a dud. The only airline that wanted it was American so they could fit the plane into the same gates they use for the smaller planes in their fleet. So Boeing designed and mocked-up a folding wing, at considerable expense, I might add. The irony is that American, after demanding we design a folding wing, didn't buy the plane. No other airline has expressed any interest in the folding option at all. It's very heavy, and requires additional wiring and plumbing to operate. Obviously, the airlines would much rather carry weight that pays its own way than weight that just sits there. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Thu Aug 8 12:11:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Neil Bolger Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Client of Intenet Portal Services Reply-To: "http://www2.portal.ca/~urbanpre/airneil.html"@thoth.portal.ca Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:55 Message-ID: The Hindenburg (and I think the other Zepplins) had diesel engines specifically designed for aviation uses. Neil Bolger http://www2.portal.ca/~urbanpre/airneil.html From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Hutchings Subject: Dirty 747-400's Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:56 Message-ID: Of all the 'new-generation' airliners I see around, there seems to be one (at least to me) that always looks dirty and 'well-used'. This is the 747-400. Can anybody tell me why this is ?. The areas that are 'always' dirty are predominately down the back of the aeroplane, the lower part of the rudder, the tail-cone, and the area of the fuselage just above the horizontal tail surfaces. This 'dirty-ness' is sometimes also seen around front cargo holds, and passenger doors .... is it something to do with pressure leaks ??. Andy ANDREW HUTCHINGS, NEW CASTLE, UK e-mail: andy@airnorth.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.airnorth.demon.co.uk/ From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: over-automation with glass cockpits Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:56 Message-ID: You can argue all you want about whether having multiple different systems cross check each other, or having identical systems cross check each other. But judging from what I have learned about the Airbus problems, many of the problems did not occur because of coding errors, they occured because of design errors (for instance checking for both squat switch AND wheels turning before allowing deployment of thrust reversers which caused a problem landing on a wet runway when wheels would skid and not turn). However, many of the problems were caused by computer flaws, notably with the alarm computers who generated many false alarms which resulted in the plane taking immediate corrective actions (confusing pilots). There were also cases of the adjustment of the cabin temperature affecting the engine thrust routines during a flight. With identical inputs and outputs, different programs can only differ so much. And if different systems are fed with the same erroneous data, the different systems will respond with erroneous outputs. I beleive that the different systems do have the following advantage: In the event of special yet-untested conditions arising that cause one computer system to crash, having different programs will reduce the likelyhood that all systems will crash (eg: division by zero, trying to access non-existant memory etc). As far as over-automation and imposed limits: Do you not think that the designers of the DC-3 imposed limits when they designed the rudders and elevators and decided just as much they could physically move ? Do you not think that the designers of new engines imposed limits when they added electronic fuel controls ? The argument that one should be allowed to "bend" the aircraft and cheat the limits in order to save the flight is made MANY MANY times. While I am sure that many examples can be brought up where such "cheating" saved lifes. However, I wonder if there are many RECENT proofs on RECENT aircrafts. Newer and lighter materials and alloys may not have that "bending" ability that older materials have, so claiming that it is safe to "bend" a A320 is not necessarily true even though it might be true for a similar claim for a vintage 727 or 737-200. From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dsmith@hplms2.hpl.hp.com (David R. Smith) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:57 Message-ID: David Lesher (wb8foz@netcom.com) wrote: : It always seemed to me that what you want to do is fold the wing : DOWN not up. The structual reason is obvious. The hassle is : you can only fold it far enough out so it won't drag on the : ground ;-} Or it could fold as the Grummans of WWII: rotate forward, then fold back. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs | "I like to get my hands dirty, dsmith@hpl.hp.com | because it stimulates my mind." | -- Irwin Sobel From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: 737 NACA inlet with moving parts? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011 Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:57 Message-ID: Bill Urban wrote: > > On certain 737s, I've noticed that a NACA duct near the rear of the > fuselage (right side, I believe) seems to have a mechanized piece which > folds out away from the a/c, rather than the usual 'passive' design > familiar from other planes (and race cars). Is this the inlet for the > APU? How, when, and why does it operate? It is indeed the air inlet for the APU. The door opens when the APU start switch is placed to the START position (momentary) and after the APU fuel shutoff valve has opened. It closes when the APU switch is set to OFF or because of a fire warning shutdown. The part that sticks out from the fuselage is called the "Vortex Generator with Flap" in the training manuals. I'll have to check to see exactly how that operates and when. I'll get back on this. Dave From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Art Intemann Subject: Re: Physics Question Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Reply-To: ajintemann@earthlink.net Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:57 Message-ID: Ramesh Pillutla wrote: > here's the scenario: > How does a fully-loaded 747 maintain it's speed, altitude and engine power > settings over a long flight like LAX-SYDNEY. It's generally done by one of three autopilots (on the 747-400), which are programmed by the pilots. > Fuel is constantly > being burned off which implies that the weight of the aircraft is constantly > changing. If the weight is constantly changing, isn't the center of > gravity constantly changing. Yes, but within a design (small range), which the autopilot pitch trim adjusts for. > Alos, is fuel burned equally from both > the port/starboard fuel tanks in the wings to avoid an imbalance ? Yes. > The law of conservation of momentum states that for a body moving with a > certain velocity, changing the mass will result in change in velocity > to conserve momentum. The intuitive conclusion is that the auto-pilot > actually adjusts the engine power settings to account for the mass > of expended fuel. Actually, the autothrottle system adjusts throttle position to maintain a preset airspeed or mach number. I'm not expert, just a driver Art From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:57 Message-ID: In article rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) writes: >Before the two recent 757 crashes, the MD-80 was second in safety. ^^^^^^ only >It must be in first place now. Definitely. Once one throws out the two crashes during the flight-test program. And the crash in Argentina. And the NWA crash at Detroit. And the SAS crash in Sweden. Oh, and the CAL RTO crash at La Guardia... Apologies if I missed any. -- 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 Aug 11 00:03:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:57 Message-ID: several people variously wrote: > Before the two recent 757 crashes, the MD-80 was second in safety. > It must be in first place now. First by what measure? Number of hulls destroyed, number of lives lost, number of injuries per passenger mile? Just curious. >I've had MD-80 pilots for an airline that will remain nameless say that >under certain c/g conditions, they run out of elevator up-trim on final >approach. As a result, they have to physically horse the nose up for >the flare, such as it is. I had a retired pilot tell me a similar story, plus he said that the MD-80 "just didn't feel good" to fly. I also liked David G. Davidson's list of good/bad serviceability items on various narrowbodies. Interesting stuff! One comment interested me: >727 APU installation is the best of the three, but also far from ideal. It amuses me how many fellow passengers I hear complaining about how loud that APU is in the cabin. Most of them don't seem to *know* that its an APU and not a main engine, but they all know its loud if you're sitting near the trailing edge of the stbd. wing. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mbushnel@openix.com (Mark J. Bushnell) Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Openix Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:58 Message-ID: In article , Steve Lacker wrote: >As one of the more vocal MD-80 haters around, I'll stand up and defend it :-) > >It *is* a pretty efficient machine. The rearward placement of the wings is >simply a result of the rearward placement of the engines. The engines >themselves are a relatively efficient design. It doesn't have THE most >efficient wing, THE most efficient engine, etc., but its a good combination >overall. What it lacks in efficiency in the air, it tends to make up for in its >reliability and apparently good serviceability (any airline mechanics here who >can comment on that?). No doubt it could be more efficient if it had been >designed from scratch as a 150+ pax airliner instead of being a mercilessly >stretched DC-9, but all in all its done well for itself. In my experience of working on Boeing and Douglas aircraft, I've found that they each have their good and bad points. I prefer the Boeings, since I've worked on them more often & am more familiar with them. One area that I definitely do not care for on the DC-9/MD-80 is the air conditioning system. It's located in the tail of the aircraft, on either side of the aft stairway. It's very cramped, no ventilation, and the exhaust duct from the APU runs right thru the area occupied by the right air conditioning system. On the Boeings, the airconditioning system is located in the bottom of the aircraft, just ahead of the main landing gear. It's accessed by opening doors or panels located in the belly of the plane. Speaking of APU's, I do wish that Douglas would figure out where to locate the APU exhaust opening. On the DC-9/MD-80, it's on the side of the aircraft, just above the right (#2) engine. If one should open up the #2 engine upper cowling while the APU is running (or start up the APU with the #2's upper cowl open), you are going to have a hole burned into the composite material of the cowling in very short order from the APU exhaust heat. On the DC-10, the exhaust is also at the back of the aircraft, but pointed down at about a 45 degree angle. Every time a person walks around the back of the aircraft, they are going to be hit by a blast of hot air from the APU. Mark From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:58 Message-ID: For many years now oil tanker ships have used inert gases (filtered exhaust gas from the engines) to fill the non liquid containing part of their cargo and fuel tanks, greatly reducing the risk of explosion. Explosions, when they do occur now, are usually when the tanks are being ventilated and cleaned. Inert gas is also used to pressurize the fuel tanks of liquid fuel rockets, since Goddard's time, when pressure is needed. Are inert gases used in the fuel tanks of any present aircraft? Was such a system used on any gasoline fueled aircraft in the past, or perhaps experimented with in World War 2 to protect aircraft from gunfire? Anyone see problems with this in planes? I suspect that a supply of nitrogen or CO2 carried on board would work better than exhaust gas. Thanks in advance for any comments. Peter Wezeman From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Art Intemann Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Reply-To: ajintemann@earthlink.net Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:58 Message-ID: > certainly Aurbus wings _look_ a lot more conservative, with less > sweepback, and correspondingly lower speed (sweepback affects the > critical Mach number of the wing), so the issue isn't going to be > getting the wing to carry the beast, or if it is, the problem is > going to affect Airbus equally if not more so. Critical Mach number is perhaps more affected by chord than sweepback. From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tim Hills Subject: 747-400 Magnetic Detectors Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Timbo PLC Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:58 Message-ID: Does anyone know if an EFIS equiped aircraft has any magnetic compass system other than the E2 standby compass? In a recent flight deck discussion, on a 400, I said that I thought that an IRS system needed an approximate heading reference for its initial alignment. If it doesn't of course, then there is only ONE magnetic compass in the entire aircraft. Answers from Boeing experts welcome. Thanks, -- Tim@cordle.demon.co.uk From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:58 Message-ID: I've got articles from the 1966-1970 period which use virtually the exact same wording you've used in arguing the future of the 747. Hardly anyone thought the 747 would be built in anything like the numbers it has, and I'll wager that no one would have guessed it would still be in production at the turn of the century and beyond. I know there are vast differences in the arguments, and that the situation in the world has changed dramatically since 1966, but my guess is that you'll see Boeing forge ahead with the stretched 747s in the not too distant future. Not so sure about Airbus, as I don't think they're in the position Boeing is to launch another product right now. While the new 747 variants are certainly going to be different airplanes from current versions, the Airbus proposal for the A3XX will be a new airplane from the ground up (if I understand correctly). While the guts may be different in the Boeing design, a fair amount of the nuts and bolt engineering is already done and paid for. Just my $.02... Jennings Heilig From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: keir@indo.net.id (Keir Wallace) Subject: Re: 737 NACA inlet with moving parts? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:59 Message-ID: Bill Urban (fintubi@navier.stanford.edu) asked: >On certain 737s, I've noticed that a NACA duct near the rear of the >fuselage (right side, I believe) seems to have a mechanized piece which >folds out away from the a/c, rather than the usual 'passive' design >familiar from other planes (and race cars). Is this the inlet for the >APU? How, when, and why does it operate? Certainly is. The triangular plate hanging out in the breeze just forward of the inlet is a vortex generator. [Looks like a T-tail assembly for those who havn't seen one.] The vortex generator is attached to the inlet door and when the APU is shut down the door closes and the vortex generator is aligned with the local flow. Perhaps later model 737s with uprated APUs needed more air and the vortex gen. was easier than a bigger or relocated inlet. The aircon pack inlets below the wing root also have articulated doors on the 73 but rather than vortex generators they have slush deflector doors, just to keep the parts count up. ;-) Keir, 737 FO and power lurker. From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: trussell@magmacom.com (Tim Russell) Subject: Re: More radial engine talk... Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Altopia Corp. - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:59 Message-ID: On 05 Aug 96 23:32:58 , Steve Lacker wrote: >Recently, we discussed the turbo-compound radials of the '50s as used in > >On the other hand, almost every time I've talked to 'Yellow Rose' crew members, >there is a sad story of trying to find yet another rebuildable Wright R-2600, >or having a freshly rebuilt engine on the wing but not performing well at all >(freauently, the nacelle is open and tinkerings are occurring at the show >itself). In practice, were the R-2600's that much more trouble prone, or is it >just that there are fewer Wright's left around today? Flipping through Janes, >it looks like the 2800 was a far more common choice for airliners than was the >2600, so 2800 parts are probably more common. Can someone point me in the direction of where I can find some information on how the cartrage starting systems worked on radial engines. I also would like to know about compressed air starters used on some radials. From kls Sun Aug 11 00:03:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu (Richard N. Rea) Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 11 Aug 96 00:03:59 Message-ID: In article Neil Bolger writes: >From: Neil Bolger >Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines >Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:55 >The Hindenburg (and I think the other Zepplins) had diesel engines >specifically designed for aviation uses. My source reported that the Zepplins used "Blaugas", which accounted for about one-third the total gas volume. They were V-12's. From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:34 Message-ID: In rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: > >In article rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) writes: >>Before the two recent 757 crashes, the MD-80 was second in safety. > ^^^^^^ only >>It must be in first place now. > >Definitely. Once one throws out the two crashes during the >flight-test program. And the crash in Argentina. And the NWA crash >at Detroit. And the SAS crash in Sweden. Oh, and the CAL RTO crash >at La Guardia... >Apologies if I missed any. Yeah, you missed some. It's computed on deaths or accidents per RPM, revenue passenger mile, or something. There are over 1,000 MD-80 racking up RPM's right now. The listing I saw was at a Boeing presentation, where they were discussing USAir 427 and the 737's fourth place. RD From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:34 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu (Richard N. Rea) Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:34 Message-ID: In article rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >In article rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) writes: >>Before the two recent 757 crashes, the MD-80 was second in safety. > ^^^^^^ only >>It must be in first place now. >Definitely. Once one throws out the two crashes during the >flight-test program. And the crash in Argentina. And the NWA crash >at Detroit. And the SAS crash in Sweden. Oh, and the CAL RTO crash >at La Guardia... >Apologies if I missed any. Hee-Hee. Actually the two which "crashed" during flight testing shouldn't count. The first was from the ham-fisted FAA official who tried to do a carrier-landing into the runway. The second (can't remember who was flying the plane) which overran the runway and ended up in some soft ground. The crane which was trying to pick it up shifted and the plane bent in the middle. Richard From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: johnmhunt@ipa.net (John M. Hunt) Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Internet Partners of America Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:35 Message-ID: >I've had MD-80 pilots for an airline that will remain nameless say that >under certain c/g conditions, they run out of elevator up-trim on final >approach. As a result, they have to physically horse the nose up for the >flare, such as it is. Interesting. Have you heard any similar stories of inadequate nose-down available trim? I wonder if the MD-80 designers might have been thinking about the possible installation of more modern engines such as the CFM family or the V2500. I don't have any numbers in front of me but imagine these more efficient engines weigh more than the JT8D-217 and its close relatives? By the way, keep up the excellent work represented by your very informative posts. - - John M. Hunt johnmhunt@ipa.net From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: http://members.aol.com/tristar500/l1011 Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:35 Message-ID: An aside to the Lawn Dart thread. >On the DC-10, the exhaust is also at the back of the aircraft, but >pointed down at about a 45 degree angle. Every time a person walks >around the back of the aircraft, they are going to be hit by a blast of >hot air from the APU. This is that same as the L-1011 installation. The difference is that the L-1011 APU (which is a derivative of the PT-6) is much louder and seems to blow much hotter air than the DC-10 (which I think is a Garret unit). Points to the DC-10 for this, but I still won't fly on one if I don't have to. Dave http://rampages.onramp.net/~gerhard/tristar From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stefano Pagiola Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: World Bank Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:35 Message-ID: Robert Dorsett wrote: > >Before the two recent 757 crashes, the MD-80 was second in safety. > ^^^^^^ only > >It must be in first place now. > > Definitely. Once one throws out the two crashes during the > flight-test program. And the crash in Argentina. And the NWA crash > at Detroit. And the SAS crash in Sweden. Oh, and the CAL RTO crash > at La Guardia... > > Apologies if I missed any. There was an Inex Adria CFIT crash in Corsica very early on (1981 or so) and an Alitalia crash near Zurich (also CFIT, as I recall) a few years ago. To be fair, several of the accidents above resulted in no or little loss of life (SAS, CO). And the flight-test "crashes" were more in the order of hard landings. I'm not familiar with any MD-80 crash in Argentina. Can you supply details? (Airline, date, location, cause, fatalities?) In terms of hull losses, we should also add to the 757's ledger one loss in China (when a hijacked 737 flew into a parked 757). So in terms of hull losses, the MD-80 is indeed still ahead. How does it work out in terms of fatalities? Those 757s were pretty full... Stefano From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pierce@pat.mdc.com (Cole Pierce) Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: MDSSC Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:35 Message-ID: >I've had MD-80 pilots for an airline that will remain nameless say that >under certain c/g conditions, they run out of elevator up-trim on final >approach. As a result, they have to physically horse the nose up for >the flare, such as it is. I don't know of ANY pilot who 'horses the nose up for the flare.' And yes, I've found a lot of nose up trim on roll-out, but I've never 'run out' of it. Would sure be a helluva forward c.g. >I had a retired pilot tell me a similar story, plus he said that the MD-80 >"just didn't feel good" to fly. I think the MD-80 feels very good to fly. It's not an F-4 or an F-8, and I would like a little better speed stability in the dirty configuration, but other than that, it flies great for a big plane. Aside: how many of those other posts on MD-80 accidents were pilot error? The Northwest/Detroit for sure, and probably the LaGuardia abort, altho that one leaves a few unanswered questions. The rest? gun one MD-80 driver usn (ret) From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:35 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Cameron Hines Subject: Re: 747-400 Magnetic Detectors Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:35 Message-ID: Tim Hills wrote: >Does anyone know if an EFIS equiped aircraft has any magnetic compass >system other than the E2 standby compass? > >In a recent flight deck discussion, on a 400, I said that I thought that >an IRS system needed an approximate heading reference for its initial >alignment. If it doesn't of course, then there is only ONE magnetic >compass in the entire aircraft. Answers from Boeing experts welcome. As far as I am aware the IRS's can work out True North. During the alignment the IRS's sense earth rotation and find true north. As an actual position is then entered (a known starting point is required) the magnetic variation is stored in the FMC data base and so magnetic north is then known. Hope this helps. From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 747-400 Magnetic Detectors Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:36 Message-ID: In article , Tim Hills wrote: > Does anyone know if an EFIS equiped aircraft has any magnetic compass > system other than the E2 standby compass? > > In a recent flight deck discussion, on a 400, I said that I thought that > an IRS system needed an approximate heading reference for its initial > alignment. If it doesn't of course, then there is only ONE magnetic > compass in the entire aircraft. Answers from Boeing experts welcome. The IRS requires an EXACT position input and some time to stabilize before it can be used. That's why some airports paint the lat/long position of each gate on the pavement or on a placard where it can be seen from the cockpit. The IRS is turned on early in the pre-flight cockpit procedures to give the system time to stabilize, at which point the plane's exact position is entered. At least, that's my understanding. I'm sure there are pilots in this group who can respond with the exact procedure. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Norman Ovens Subject: Re: 747-400 Magnetic Detectors Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Rockwell International Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:36 Message-ID: Tim Hills wrote: > > Does anyone know if an EFIS equiped aircraft has any magnetic compass > system other than the E2 standby compass? > > In a recent flight deck discussion, on a 400, I said that I thought that > an IRS system needed an approximate heading reference for its initial > alignment. If it doesn't of course, then there is only ONE magnetic > compass in the entire aircraft. Answers from Boeing experts welcome. EFIS is the cockpit interface. The heading can be derived in a number of ways. An IRS (Typically a Laser Gyro) does not require a magnetic heading input. An IRS senses the inertial rate and computes true North. During alignment on the ground with the aircraft stationary. The IRS senses the angular rate of the environment it is strapped down to. As the aircraft is stationary the IRS measure the angular rotation of the Earth. The IRS uses this angular rate to determine the direction of true North. The magnitude of the rotation vector allows the IRS to compute the Latitude of the aircraft (this is then compared with the operator's input). IRS derived magnetic heading is calculated using magnetic variation maps of the Earth circa 1985. This is not a very precise output in comparison to the true North computation. Most operators do not notice that there is a difference between the IRS generated magnetic heading and magnetic Flux sensed heading unless they compare it closely with a reversionary attitude and heading source such as an AHRS,which is slaved to a magnetic flux detector. An AHRS uses magnetic flux detectors (typically wing mounted). Slaves the heading output to magnetic North. From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Hal E. Struck x3355" Subject: Re: 747-400 Magnetic Detectors Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:36 Message-ID: Tim, >In a recent flight deck discussion, on a 400, I said that I thought that >an IRS system needed an approximate heading reference for its initial >alignment. If it doesn't of course, then there is only ONE magnetic >compass in the entire aircraft. On Honeywell and Litton IRUs, only the present position (lat and lon) is required to be entered during the alignment process. If, for some reason, the IRU is placed into attitude mode, a magnetic heading must be entered. From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: b36780@aol.com (B367 80) Subject: Re: 747-400 Magnetic Detectors Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: b36780@aol.com (B367 80) Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:36 Message-ID: To the best of my understanding, once the present position is entered into the IRU's they then go into the "Align" mode. This mode determines aircraft attitude by sensing the rotation of the earth and calibrates the units to their position is space and consequently determines the heading of the aircraft. Anticipating the failure of one or more IRU's a method to manually input heading into an individual IRU in flight is possible. In this mode called attitude (ATT) the IRU can provide attitude and heading information to the flight instruments but is unaware of it's LAT/LONG. Perhaps this is the heading input information I think you heard referred to. Gary Cieszynski B757 B767 SA227 B36780@aol.com From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:36 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:36 Message-ID: Richard N. Rea (rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu) wrote: : In article Neil Bolger writes: : >The Hindenburg (and I think the other Zepplins) had diesel engines : >specifically designed for aviation uses. : My source reported that the Zepplins used "Blaugas", which accounted for about : one-third the total gas volume. They were V-12's. The first thought is to ask why not the hydrogen. The second thought is that they might have hoped for helium sometime if the political situation cooled or they won the war. The third thought is could Graf Zeppelin and and Hindenburg float with helium? The Germans, of course, built the only rigid dirigibles (save one, R101) did not suffer an inflight structural failure. The Los Angeles flew ok with helium, but maybe it was designed for it. If people on the thread don't remember, Nevile Shute (Norway) was one of the design team for R101 and in a book on it insisted it was done right. It didn't have much chance to prove it. I went to Lakehurst to see the arrival of the Graf Zeppelin on its first transatlantic crossing. What a traffic jam there was getting back to Philadelphia that evening! -- Gerry From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: applied research laboratories Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:37 Message-ID: Richard N. Rea wrote: > > >The Hindenburg (and I think the other Zepplins) had diesel engines > >specifically designed for aviation uses. > > My source reported that the Zepplins used "Blaugas", which accounted for about > one-third the total gas volume. They were V-12's. I seem to remember both Maybach and Daimler-Benz diesels being used. Weight was a minor consideration in Zeppelins, unlike fixed-wing A/C. I imagine any industrial diesel of the correct RPM and power rating would make a satisfactory Zeppelin powerplant with minimal modifications. Not so for a fixed-wing installation! -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: weldfish@aol.com (WELDFISH) Subject: Re: Diesel aircraft engines Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: weldfish@aol.com (WELDFISH) Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:37 Message-ID: Group; Wern't the Junkers "Jumo" aeroengines of WWII diesel? (....and if not the Jumo, there was a Junkers diesel.... And props are not for boats. Proper boatmen call props"wheels"... Tony Sebastian From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "David K. Cornutt" Subject: Re: 737 NACA inlet with moving parts? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Residential Engineering Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:37 Message-ID: In article Keir Wallace, keir@indo.net.id writes: >The aircon pack inlets below the wing root also have articulated >doors on the 73 but rather than vortex generators they have slush deflector >doors, just to keep the parts count up. ;-) I've read that some 737-200s were equipped for operating out of unimproved airfields. Supposedly, they were equipped with (among other things) air jets at the bottoms of the nacelle inlets, to blow debris away from the intakes. Is this slush deflector door part of that package? And just how many of these "unimproved-field" -200s (if any) did Boeing actually build? --- David K. Cornutt, Residentially Engineered, Huntsville, AL email: cornutt@hiwaay.net I'm a rocket scientist. Don't tell me what TV I must see. From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks 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: 18 Aug 96 20:13:37 Message-ID: "P. Wezeman" writes: > Are inert gases used in the fuel tanks of any present aircraft? >Was such a system used on any gasoline fueled aircraft in the past, >or perhaps experimented with in World War 2 to protect aircraft from >gunfire? Anyone see problems with this in planes? I suspect that a >supply of nitrogen or CO2 carried on board would work better than >exhaust gas. I recall being told {by the now long-retired refueling system guru of an airline with a maintenance base at SFO ;-} that there had been some 60-70's a/c losses that were attributated to static-induced fuel explosions. There was a great deal of gov't pressure to impliment such, but then other causes were found.. It would indeed be trivial to impliment such with on-board N2/CO2. Simply remove all the seats & px to compensate for the massive additional weight. -- 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 Aug 18 20:13:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: astroboy Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Quantum Networking Solutions; USA; info@qnet.com Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:37 Message-ID: "P. Wezeman" wrote: > > Are inert gases used in the fuel tanks of any present aircraft? > Was such a system used on any gasoline fueled aircraft in the past, > or perhaps experimented with in World War 2 to protect aircraft from > gunfire? Anyone see problems with this in planes? I suspect that a > supply of nitrogen or CO2 carried on board would work better than > exhaust gas. > Regarding WWII aircraft, the Soviet IL-2 Sturmovik and American F4U Corsair (early models only) used exhaust gases to inert the fuel tank ullage. Everything that I've read indicates that it worked successfully. I don't know of its application on modern aircraft. You may want to read Robert Ball's "Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis and Design" for more info on fuel tank inerting. It's an AIAA text. Regards, Mike From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:37 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: Tom Speer Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 412th Test Wing / TSFF Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:37 Message-ID: P. Wezeman wrote: >... > Are inert gases used in the fuel tanks of any present aircraft? > .... Yes, but it's more of a feature on military aircraft than civil aircraft. For example, the C-17 has an onboard inert gas generating system (OBIGGS) which essentailly filters the oxygen out of the air (bled from the engines) and uses the resulting gas to fill the ullage space in the tanks. The oxygen is dumped overboard. In principle, you could have both onboard oxygen generating system (OBOGS) and IBIGGS from the same system, but I don't know of any aircraft which does this. As I recall, the C-17 IBIGGS is dual redundant, is neither small nor light, and had teething problems in development. But it works OK now. TS From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: whitcher@engr.csulb.edu (Jeremy Whitcher) Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Cal State Long Beach Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:38 Message-ID: P. Wezeman (pwezeman@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote: : For many years now oil tanker ships have used inert gases (filtered : exhaust gas from the engines) to fill the non liquid containing part of : their cargo and fuel tanks, greatly reducing the risk of explosion. : Explosions, when they do occur now, are usually when the tanks are : being ventilated and cleaned. Inert gas is also used to pressurize : the fuel tanks of liquid fuel rockets, since Goddard's time, when : pressure is needed. : Are inert gases used in the fuel tanks of any present aircraft? The McDonnell Douglas C-17 uses an inert gas generating system to prevent small arms fire from igniting fuel tank vapors. The system is called OBIGGS (onboard inert gas generating system). The system takes engine bleed air and filters out oxegen and moisture. It then pressurizes the NEA (nitrogen enriched air) in storage tanks. When the NEA is needed, it is distributed to the fuel tanks. OBIGGS is able to supply inert gas to the fuel system for 48 hours without the need for external power. ------- Jeremy Whitcher whitcher@engr.csulb.edu From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: Darren Pardoe Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Reply-To: dpardoe@st-athan.demon.co.uk Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:38 Message-ID: On 11 Aug 96 00:03:58 , "P. Wezeman" wrote: > For many years now oil tanker ships have used inert gases (filtered >exhaust gas from the engines) to fill the non liquid containing part of >their cargo and fuel tanks, greatly reducing the risk of explosion. >Explosions, when they do occur now, are usually when the tanks are >being ventilated and cleaned. Inert gas is also used to pressurize >the fuel tanks of liquid fuel rockets, since Goddard's time, when >pressure is needed. > Are inert gases used in the fuel tanks of any present aircraft? >... I suspect that a supply of nitrogen or CO2 carried on board would >work better than exhaust gas. The Tornado, used by the Royal Air Force uses nitrogen for the fin fuel tank. The nitrogen is stored in a small cylinder at the rear of the aircraft and recharged during a AF/BF servicing. This system is only used for the fin fuel group only! I wonder why. Regards Daz From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: "David K. Cornutt" Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Residential Engineering Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:38 Message-ID: In article P. Wezeman, pwezeman@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu writes: >Inert gas is also used to pressurize >the fuel tanks of liquid fuel rockets, since Goddard's time, when >pressure is needed. Hmmm... The Space Shuttle maintains tank pressure by circulating back to the tank propellant that has been heated by the engine. (In other words, hot hydrogen gas goes back the the hydrogen tank, and hot oxygen gas goes back to the oxygen tank.) Fire in flight isn't really that much of a problem (unless the tank ruptures), since, except for the first few seconds of flight, there isn't any ambient air to support combustion. Back in the late '60s, there were some auto racing groups that experimented with buffering fuel tanks. This was done in some cases with inert gas, and in at least one case that I know of, by buffering the fuel with an outer jacket filled with a fluid that would (supposedly) make the fuel non-flammable if they mixed. Neither of these ideas worked very well in testing, and as fuel cells improved, they turned out to be unnecessary. --- David K. Cornutt, Residentially Engineered, Huntsville, AL email: cornutt@hiwaay.net I'm a rocket scientist. Don't tell me what TV I must see. From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rrea@caedm.et.byu.edu (Richard N. Rea) Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:38 Message-ID: In article Steve Lacker writes: >My 1989 issue of "Jane's World Aircraft" lists the Nimrod (military development >of the Comet) as having Spey engines. Were the Nimrods built with Speys, or was >this a re-engining operation? While the Nimrod is a development of the Comet, it is substantially different. Replacing the Avons with Speys was just one modification. The structure has been *substantially* modified for the ASW (and the later AEW) roles. From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:38 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Turbofan Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:38 Message-ID: >>>I'm not sure about the Comet 4; they may have had Conways. >>> >>>No, they had Avons as well. Mk 117 (7,300lb st) for the series 2 Comets, >>>Mark 502 (10,000lb st) for series 3 and Mark 524 (10,500lb st) for >>>series 4. (I did check this time!) > >>My 1989 issue of "Jane's World Aircraft" lists the Nimrod (military >>development of the Comet) as having Spey engines. Were the Nimrods >>built with Speys, or was this a re-engining operation? The Nimrod R1 and MR2 are equipped with the Spey 251 and 250 respectively. These are the same actual engine and rated at 12000 lb (approx). The different Mark number for the two engines stems from the need to manage the engine maintenance. The R1 is a high altitude recce aircraft whereas the MR2 is an over the sea patrol aircraft. The inspection/overhaul period for the 250 engine modules is much lower due to the corrosive environment. It is permissible to mix the modules from 250 and 251 in a rebuild, but once used in a 250 the inspection/overhaul rules for the 250 must be applied even if rebuilt into a 251. So its preferable not to mix them. All current Nimrods use the Spey 250/251 and were built that way.. Only one Nimrod has flown with a different engine, and that is the avionic prototype XV147 which was a converted Comet IV and retained its Avon Engines. This airframe is currently at British Aerospace Warton and being used for cabin and flight deck mockups for NIMROD 2000, coming into service in 2001. This new Nimrod will be powered by a marinised variant of the BMW Rolls-Royce BR710. One Nimrod MR1 was re-engined and that was the aerodynamic prototype XV148 which was also converted from a Comet IV. All production Nimrods were new build, >The Nimrod, whilst based on the Comet is actually quite a bit bigger. >It's certainly longer and also has a double-bubble fuselage, whilst >the Comets' all had an oval one. Apart from the need for a more modern >power plant, the Nimrods also probably needed more power. The fuselage length of the Nimrod is the same as the Comet IV. The circular cross section fuselage had an unpressurised "pannier" grafted onto it to contain a bomb bay and this gives it a double bubble cross section from the outside. The higher MTOW demands higher thrust engines. Gerald Wilson From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Scott Bell Subject: Ice related accidents Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Anet Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:39 Message-ID: Does any know where I can get pic or JPEG's or what ever of aicraft accidents? I am an aircraft mechanic teaching de-ice procedures and think it would be an eye opener for some of the students..Thnaks From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: almcf@mitre.org (Al McFarland) Subject: Autopilot Mach Hold Questions Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:39 Message-ID: Anyone here familiar with the behavior of the Mach hold channel of the autopilots on in-service air transports? I presume the crew set the target Mach speed and then the Mach hold channel maintains Mach number within a certain tolerance above or below this target. Are the operators able to adjust the tolerance bands? Is there a dead band within which no power adjustments are made? What kind of control law is used in that channel? For normal cruise practice, how much excursion in Mach number is experienced around the target Mach number? Assuming that the excursions are periodic with an interval of time above the target and an interval below, what would typical periods be? Anyone know of accessible references that would address these questions? From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:39 Message-ID: Jennings Heilig wrote: > While the new 747 variants are certainly going to be > different airplanes from current versions, the Airbus proposal for the > A3XX will be a new airplane from the ground up (if I understand > correctly). While the guts may be different in the Boeing design, a > fair amount of the nuts and bolt engineering is already done and paid > for. Well, whether Boeing or Airbus build a brand new plane, it does not necessarily mean that they start from nothing. Both already have computer systems (FBW). Airbus already has experience in adapting its 320 systems to its other planes (340 and the latest model of the 310). And before I would beleive that Boeing can just extend the 747 without redesign costs etc, I would like to know more about what changes had to be done between the 747-100 and 200, 200 to 300 and 300 to 400. Are the landing gears the same ? Are all the doors the same design, even the ones on the second deck ? Are the wings identical ? Made of the same materials ? Are engines the same ? Obviously, the cockpit in the 400 was re-designed. If Boeing is to build a super version of the 747, how much of the existing 747-400 can be re-used ? If Airbus is to build a new big plane, how much of its 340 can be re-used ? (Look at what they were able to do with their 310 to make the 600 super-guppy transport). So, before saying that Airbus has to build a brand new plane from scratch at great expense, and Boeing can just extend its 747 at little expense, I would be more interested in a comparison of the major systems which Boeing and Airbus would have to design FROM SCRATCH for their new big planes and which systems could be used with few modifications from their existing planes. From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:39 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:39 Message-ID: In article , Jennings Heilig wrote: > I've got articles from the 1966-1970 period which use virtually the > exact same wording you've used in arguing the future of the 747. > Hardly anyone thought the 747 would be built in anything like the > numbers it has, and I'll wager that no one would have guessed it would > still be in production at the turn of the century and beyond. > > I know there are vast differences in the arguments, and that the > situation in the world has changed dramatically since 1966, but my > guess is that you'll see Boeing forge ahead with the stretched 747s in > the not too distant future. Not so sure about Airbus, as I don't > think they're in the position Boeing is to launch another product > right now. While the new 747 variants are certainly going to be > different airplanes from current versions, the Airbus proposal for the > A3XX will be a new airplane from the ground up (if I understand > correctly). While the guts may be different in the Boeing design, a > fair amount of the nuts and bolt engineering is already done and paid > for. If the market warrants a 500-600 seat airplane, Boeing and/or Airbus will build it. Unlike the situation in the past, when Boeing would design and build a plane based on the input of a relatively few number of customers (only one in the case of the 747, Juan Tripp of Pan Am) and then offer it to everyone as a done deal, we now involve our customers very deeply in the initial concept and design decision processes, as evidenced by the way we handled the 777 program. If our customers determine that they have a need for a 500+ seat airplane, and if they decide their need is definite enough to order sufficient planes to justify the expense of designing and producing it, then someone will build it. By the way, the 747 was intended from the begining to be a freighter. That is why the cockpit is above the main deck. Juan Tripp's idea was that long-range passenger transportation would eventually be handled by the SST fleet, which was then under development. What he envisioned was a "stopgap" airplane that he could use to carry lots of people on long flights while the SST was being designed, built, and tested. Once the SST entered service, Tripp intended to convert all of Pan Am's 747s to cargo exclusively. So it was this ultimate purpose of a cargo carrier which actually influenced the design. Of course, the SST never materialized, so the 747 continued in its very successful role as a passenger carrier, but that was not the intention. If the SST HAD been put into production, you would not see any 747s in passenger service today, assuming Juan Tripp's plan had continued through to fruition. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Sun Aug 18 20:13:40 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 18 Aug 96 20:13:40 Message-ID: In article Jennings Heilig (jheilig@gate.net) wrote: > I've got articles from the 1966-1970 period which use virtually the > exact same wording you've used in arguing the future of the 747. > Hardly anyone thought the 747 would be built in anything like the > numbers it has, and I'll wager that no one would have guessed it would > still be in production at the turn of the century and beyond. Indeed. In its first decade, the B747 sales were lackluster. Also before the first revenue B747 flight, Japan Airlines was the lone Asian carrier which had ordered the Jumbo jet. No one would have guessed that quite a number of Asian carriers would become some of the largest B747 operators. BTW, a few days ago, I read that that there were 124 B747s still on Boeing's backlog, but only ten of 124 are ordered by US carriers. > I know there are vast differences in the arguments, and that the > situation in the world has changed dramatically since 1966, but my > guess is that you'll see Boeing forge ahead with the stretched 747s in > the not too distant future. Not so sure about Airbus, as I don't > think they're in the position Boeing is to launch another product > right now. While the new 747 variants are certainly going to be > different airplanes from current versions, the Airbus proposal for the > A3XX will be a new airplane from the ground up (if I understand > correctly). While the guts may be different in the Boeing design, a > fair amount of the nuts and bolt engineering is already done and paid > for. I don't think there is any doubt that Boeing will launch the B747-500X/ -600X. (Supposedly, most airports can handle the B747X without any major updates.) It's most likely that Boeing will officially announce the launch during the Farnborough Air Show in September. I don't think Airbus will let Boeing have the monopoly and the A3XX will most likely be built, too. However, Airbus does not seem to have secure all the funding and potential partners. Airbus will be at least three years behind. However, if they can convince a few credible airlines, such as Lufthansa, British, Singapore, etc., then the A3XX program can potentially be competitive, but still unlikely to be profitable. What we have been discussing earlier was whether there would be a future for the over-600-passenger planes. *If* there is a market for the ultra high capacity planes, the A3XX can probably be strectched with a little additional development cost because it is designed for the potential growth. OTOH, Boeing may have to spend a lot of money if they want to compete with the stretched A3XX-200. If both decide to compete in the high-end market, I think it will be financially disastrous for both companies. P.S. Will Boeing also launch the B757-200X and/or -300X at Farnborough? Last year, airlines seemed to be very interested in the B777-100X. Now, it seems airlines are not too keen on this plane. Even Airbus can no longer keep Air Canada interested in the A340-8000. Thus, I think the B777-100X and the A340-8000 are unlikely to take off any time soon. Nevertheless, Boeing may need either the B777-100X and/ or the B767-400X to fill the gap between the B767-300 and the B777-200. Pratt has the PW4098 with one customer (Korean Air), GE has the 100,000lb-thrust GE90 without a customer. Is the ultra- long-range B777-200X imminent? Airbus will not let Boeing steal the show. Both will probably announce some major orders. For example, the Asiana order, in which Airbus appears to be the winner, will likely be officially announced during the show. I wonder what new model(s) will Airbus launch, if any? Some potential ones include the A340-400, A340-500, A340-600, A330-400, and A3XX. Interestingly, other than the A340-400, none of the planes listed will likely be powered by existing engines. Comments, anyone? From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jmaddaus@gte.com (Put your name -- WinTrumpet) Subject: 747 vibration Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GTE Labs Inc Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:54 Message-ID: Just a quick question or two. I was on a ORD-SFO flight earlier this year (UA 747-400) and about 15 minutes into climb from ORD, the plane started to shudder very badly. This lasted for about 3 minutes before the captain announced a problem with a gear door that had decided not to drop down. He noted the crew had tried a couple of things that didn't work to their satisfaction and were going to lower the landing gear and bring it up again. We were still climbing and I'd guess about 17-19,000 ft. Cycling the gear apparently solved the problem because the vibration went away and we continued on in an uneventful flight. As far as I could tell, I felt no difference in the vibration during the gear cycling. Could a door cause a vibration as significant as the gear? It did seem that the pilot was applying rudder during this time. The following week I took the same flight and we were promptly parked in the ORD penalty box due to ATC delays in SFO. The crew left the door open and several of us walked up to chat. I mentioned the flight from the week before and the captain said that they were experiencing unexplained in-flight vibrations on 747s that UA couldn't solve. The company brought Boeing in and at that point, neither could identify the exact cause. Anyone have further insight on this? Also on the same route another time (but equipment changed to a 747-100), we experienced a violent jolt on climbout from ORD (again I'd guess below 20,000). This one had the FA's looking at each other. I happened to be staring out at the wing and I saw no wing or engine movement, but it sure was violent. My instantaneous feeling was that we had just hit something (like another plane). No announcements were made and the flight continued. I fly frequently and I have never felt turbulence like that, but I'm assuming that is what occurred. My question is why wouldn't I have seen a wing deflection or an engine rock? Thanks for any input. John Maddaus jmaddaus@gte.com From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:54 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Erico Oller Westerberg Subject: Engine fire extinguishers... do they exist? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Appelberg Publications Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:54 Message-ID: Re: Engine fire extinguishers...do they exist? Could anyone tell me if there are any fire extinguishers mounted inside or close to the engines in modern airliners? If there are any - how do they work? Any special gas, different to those used in regular fire extinguishers? Thanks Erico Oller-Westerberg Stockholm, Sweden Appelberg Publications From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mrtonka@aol.com (MRTONKA) Subject: Do fuel valves ice jam due to water in fuel? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: mrtonka@aol.com (MRTONKA) Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:55 Message-ID: Has anyone heard of cases where motor operated fuel valves (ball, gate or butterfly) jammed internally due to ice caused by excessive water in the fuel (JP4 or kerosene) freezing during flight at high altitude? Bill Simpson From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kapp@worldnet.fr (kapp) Subject: Re: Ice related accidents Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: SCT / Worldnet - Internet Provider & Information Exchange - Paris, France Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:55 Message-ID: Scott Bell wrote: >Does any know where I can get pic or JPEG's or what ever of aicraft >accidents? I am an aircraft mechanic teaching de-ice procedures and >think it would be an eye opener for some of the students..Thnaks Try http://www.plsys.co.uk/~anna/incident.htm And for pictures of the 707 crash test in 1984 try Dryden URL http://www.dfrf.nasa.gov/PhotoServer/CID/index.html From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:55 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: Ice related accidents Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:55 Message-ID: At 08:13 PM 8/18/96, you wrote: >Does any know where I can get pic or JPEG's or what ever of aicraft >accidents? I am an aircraft mechanic teaching de-ice procedures and >think it would be an eye opener for some of the students..Thnaks ===Try writing to: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Flight Safety Office Seattle, WA 98124 Tell them exactly what you want the pictures for and maybe they can find you some...no promises however as these pictures are tightly controlled. Some to the airlines might be a good backup try. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-4815 From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: felton@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (phil. Felton) Subject: Re: Ice related accidents Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Princeton Univ. Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:56 Message-ID: In article , Scott Bell wrote: > Does any know where I can get pic or JPEG's or what ever of aicraft > accidents? I am an aircraft mechanic teaching de-ice procedures and > think it would be an eye opener for some of the students..Thnaks The Weather Channel sells a 45min video called "Out of the Blue" which covers weather related accidents. About one third is on Icing, illustrated by the Washington D.C. Potomac crash and wind tunnel footage. I showed it as an introduction to my sophomore Mechanics of fluids class and they found it interesting. Phone # 1-800-544-6206. Phil. From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Chandler R. Zillman" Subject: Re: Ice related accidents Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: CRZPilot Inc. Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:56 Message-ID: Hey bud, contact Central Air Safety Chair's for the major Pilot Unions: ALPA and APA are your best shots, they have web sites and e-mail. Each conduct their own independant investigations and would have plenty of pictorial data. crzpilot, DFW. From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:56 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dave Starr" Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:56 Message-ID: Thanks for that C-17 info, Jeremey. I wasn't aware that anything tht modern was using an inert gas system. It's interesting to note that a number of modern AF aircraft, notably many C-130E and H's, use blocks of reticulated poylurethane foam to completelly fill the tankage space. Fuel fills the voids between the foam, when fuel is used, the foam takes up enough of the ullage (air space above the fuel) to make the fuel air mixture too rich to explode. I've seen tapes of actual tests with tracer ammunition fired into foam-filled drop tanks and it's a very effective technique against explosion. Takes up about 7% to 10% of the available tankage, though, and is a b*tch to work with when tank entry is required. From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: wen@infi.net (W.E. Nichols) Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: wen@infi.net Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:57 Message-ID: astroboy wrote: +Regarding WWII aircraft, the Soviet IL-2 Sturmovik and American F4U +Corsair (early models only) used exhaust gases to inert the fuel tank +ullage. Everything that I've read indicates that it worked successfully. I found your comment on the F4U interesting, so I asked the question in another group. I am not dispute your statement, it may be correct considering the "early ac changes." I do seem to recall the F4U had self sealing tanks. Here was the answer. Nick, Sorry, but not on the F4U. The pilot's manuals I have or have seen clearly show the CO2 bottle for the wing tank purge and explain it use/operation. There is a second bottle for the blow down of the u/c if the hydraulics are gone. Capt. Blackburn disscusses the system and the fatal (for one pilot) similarity in operation between the two in the early F4Us. I do not know about the IL-2 so will only say it sounds like a bad idea with out some kind of filter and cooling to keep hot particles from touching off the vapor. Gas engine exhaust has a fair percentage of H2O, not something I'd want mixed with my avgas at 20,000ft. Wouldn't put it past the Russians thou'. The original Lexington and Saratoga did use an internal combustion engine to blanket the aviation gas storage and the surrounding voids by pumping the exhaust into the spaces. In 1940(?) the engine had to be increased as the original's output wasn't enough. The reference is in Stern's book "The Lexington Class Carriers". Hope this helps. Ben Schapiro schapiro@notis.com Nick W.E. Nichols If a frog has wings, it wouldn't bump it's wen@infi.net it's ass everytime it jumped. From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: Art Intemann Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Reply-To: ajintemann@earthlink.net Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:57 Message-ID: Tom Speer wrote: > > P. Wezeman wrote: > >... > > Are inert gases used in the fuel tanks of any present aircraft? > > .... > > Yes, but it's more of a feature on military aircraft than civil aircraft. > For example, the C-17 has an onboard inert gas generating system (OBIGGS) FYI, The C5A/B has a nitrogen inerting system--nitrogen (externally loaded) is percolated through the tanks and eventually replaces all the oxygen in the ullage areas. Art From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:57 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: martin_gomez@qmgate.dfrc.nasa.gov (Tobus) Subject: Re: Inert Gas In Fuel Tanks Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: NASA Dryden Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:57 Message-ID: I believe the Avro Lancaster, a british WW2 bomber, also filled the empty space at the top of the fuel tanks with nitrogen. From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: amb@bronze.lcs.mit.edu (andrew m. boardman) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Quiche Eaters Anonymous Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:58 Message-ID: In article , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > Then, my question is will Boeing feel comfortable leaving the > over-600-seat market to Airbus? How much of a 600+ seat market is there, anyway? In any case, the Jane's handbook in front of me indicates that a 747-400 will take up to 630 pax in a single-class layout. Is this layout certifiable vis-a-vis evacuation specs, and does it really exist in service with anyone? Wouldn't this be just the thing for those oft-referenced "high-density Asian routes"? andrew From kls Fri Aug 23 13:44:58 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:58 Message-ID: Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >... computer systems (FBW). Airbus already has experience in adapting its >320 systems to its other planes (340 and the latest model of the 310). True for the A340, but not the A310 -- even the newest A310 (and A300) models still use yokes and conventional cable/hydraulic linkages to the surfaces. They do have a very modern, glass cockpit, but in terms of implementation is more like the 747-400 or 757/767. >And before I would beleive that Boeing can just extend the 747 without >redesign costs etc, I would like to know more about what changes had to >be done between the 747-100 and 200, 200 to 300 and 300 to 400. Are the >landing gears the same ? Are all the doors the same design, even the >ones on the second deck ? Are the wings identical ? Made of the same >materials ? Are engines the same ? Obviously, the cockpit in the 400 was >re-designed. I believe the landing gear is essentially the same on almost all 747 models thru the -400, though probably with some reinforcement as weights grew. Nothing substantial in terms of major redesign. The only exception would be the special versions for the Japanese domestic market, which had to be reinforced for the higher number of cycles. Doors are the same except for the new upper deck door on the -300 and -400. (The -400 may be different from the -300.) There are also some options on upper deck doors for the short hump, as discussed recently, but those date back to the -100. The SP may also have a different design for the #2 doors on the main deck. Wings are the same basic design, again with structural reinforcement over time as they learned where the weak spots were and wanted to increase gross weights. It was my impression that the -400 had some significant changes beyond the winglets, but someone told me that a 747-400(D) has a wing that's identical to the -300 or a late -200. The big exception in the wing area is the SP -- it has a totally different flap design, though the basic structure and fixed part of the airfoil is still the same. It also has a different vertical and horizontal tail. (The -400's tail looks the same as the other full- sized 747s but has substantial changes, including more composites and optional fuel tanks in the horizontal stabilizers.) Engines changes were gradual and don't clearly correlate to models in most cases. The -100s all had the early JT9D, which could also be had on a -200 or SP. (United's 747SPs and 747-100s had the same JT9D-7A engines, for example.) Later models offered GE or RR engines but you could get similar engines from a given manufacturer on any of the different types. (QANTAS has -200s and SPs with similar RR engines.) Later, heavier -200 models (and the -300s) have more substantial engine changes, but it's not model-specific. The biggest change was the -400, which went from the JT9D to the PW4000 if you bought PW engines. With GE or RR engines, the change was much less and apparently late -300s (and perhaps late, heavy -200s) have very similar engines and nacelles to the -400. Speaking of engines and nacelles, note that the 747-400 and late 767s equipped with engines from the same manufacturer are designed to be interchangeable with only minor adjustment. Bottom line: Boeing has thus far grown the 747 without a tremendous amount of redesign, the largest effort to date probably being the -400 because of the new cockpit. The proposed -500X/600X models will be a much larger effort than any previous 747 derivatives because of the entirely new wing. Still, they'll retain most of the fuselage from the -400, much of the cockpit will be from either the -400 or the 777, and I've heard the larger vertical tail will be derived from the SP's, so it's going to be a lot cheaper than starting from scratch. -- 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 Fri Aug 23 13:44:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:59 Message-ID: Jean-Francois Mezei writes (Mon Aug 19 04:30:29 1996):- > Well, whether Boeing or Airbus build a brand new plane, it does not > necessarily mean that they start from nothing. Both already have > computer systems (FBW). Airbus already has experience in adapting its > 320 systems to its other planes (340 and the latest model of the 310). A320/319/321/330/340 cockpits are virtually identical (except that the A340 has four engines, hence four thrust levers, etc.). This was a deliberate design decision by AI intended to reduce the time and cost of type conversion training. Presumably it also reduced the design time for the later models. > And before I would beleive that Boeing can just extend the 747 without > redesign costs etc, I would like to know more about what changes had to > be done between the 747-100 and 200, 200 to 300 and 300 to 400. I have visited the cockpit while flying on a 747-200, and on a 747-400. The 200 felt cramped. *MASSES* of dials everywhere, and a busy flight engineer in the rear starboard seat (facing sideways). After my visit to an A320 cockpit a few years back, and studying the A3XX instrument layout, it was all totally unfamiliar. By contrast, the 400 cockpit felt open and spacious. The layout of the screens was immediately familiar to me from the A320 (PFD and NAV for C and FO, plus two central EFIS/ECAM screens). The actual displays on the various screen looked oddly familiar, too. The only really striking difference from the A3XX was the presence of control columns instead of side-sticks. (I asked the captain of the 200 what he thought of all this new-fangled glass-cockpit automation. "Sooner the better!" he said. :-) > If Airbus is to build a new big plane, how much of its 340 can be > re-used ? (Look at what they were able to do with their 310 to make the > 600 super-guppy transport). Airbus claim that there is nothing revolutionary about the computerised flight control system on the A3XX. They point out that they have been steadily increasing the level of automation ever since Concorde. Certainly, the basic "fail safe" computer architecture was first proved on the A300/310 slat and flap control. I would say it is a racing certainty that the "fail safe" computer box will be the main building block in any future Airbus design, however the individual boxes are interconnected. 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 Fri Aug 23 13:44:59 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: m@ml.com (M Carling) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Merrill Lynch Date: 23 Aug 96 13:44:59 Message-ID: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > Will Boeing also launch the B757-200X and/or -300X at Farnborough? It is my understanding that only charters are interested in a B757-300X, and that not enough would be ordered to justify the required R&D. > Last year, airlines seemed to be very interested in the B777-100X. > Now, it seems airlines are not too keen on this plane. BA and Qantas would love to fly SYD-LHR nonstop, and the B747-500X appears to have insufficient range to do so with a full payload. Perhaps a 777-100X could be built to fly the 10500mi between Sydney and London. > Even Airbus > can no longer keep Air Canada interested in the A340-8000. Thus, I > think the B777-100X and the A340-8000 are unlikely to take off any > time soon. Nevertheless, Boeing may need either the B777-100X and/ > or the B767-400X to fill the gap between the B767-300 and the > B777-200. Boeing decided to build the B777 because airlines rejected every Boeing proposal for a B767-400X. If Boeing builds a plane larger than the B767-300 and smaller than the B777-200, it will be the B777-100X. > Is the ultra-long-range B777-200X imminent? A B777-200X with greater range than the B777-200IGW any time soon? I doubt it. M Carling From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:00 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:00 Message-ID: >It is my understanding that only charters are interested in a B757-300X, >and that not enough would be ordered to justify the required R&D. At least one major US carrier was very interested in the 757-300X a few years ago. From what I've heard, I'd be surprised if the 757-300X is *not* launched by the end of 1997. >BA and Qantas would love to fly SYD-LHR nonstop, and the B747-500X appears to >have insufficient range to do so with a full payload. Perhaps a 777-100X >could be built to fly the 10500mi between Sydney and London. Unfortunately, such a plane would have a very small market, yet would require a lot of development cost. I think it's more likely to see a trick like UA's ORD-HKG non-stop, which is limited to only 260 pax to keep the weight down -- fly a 747-500X SYD-LHR but don't sell all the seats. With a light load, perhaps the -500X can do it. >Boeing decided to build the B777 because airlines rejected every Boeing >proposal for a B767-400X. If Boeing builds a plane larger than the B767-300 >and smaller than the B777-200, it will be the B777-100X. Good point, though a stretched 767 should be cheaper to buy and to operate than a shrunken 777, though it most likely wouldn't have the same range. When it comes down to putting money on the table, airlines often change their minds at the last minute, sometimes in rather perplexing ways. >A B777-200X with greater range than the B777-200IGW any time soon? >I doubt it. Folks at Boeing seem to think the engines are growing fast enough to make an even longer range 777-200 a reasonable prospect much sooner than they thought. The latest proposals Boeing has been presenting suggest the very long-range 777 will be much closer to the -200 in size than the original 777-100X proposals. That makes the airlines much happier because they were worried about the -100X not giving them enough capacity on the long routes. -- 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 Fri Aug 23 13:45:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: don@firstsol.com (don shifris) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:01 Message-ID: >I don't think there is any doubt that Boeing will launch the B747-500X/ >-600X. (Supposedly, most airports can handle the B747X without any major >updates.) It's most likely that Boeing will officially announce the >launch during the Farnborough Air Show in September. I don't think Airbus >will let Boeing have the monopoly and the A3XX will most likely be built, >too. However, Airbus does not seem to have secure all the funding and >potential partners. Airbus will be at least three years behind. The imminent lauch of the -500/-600 747 received considerable play in Aviation Week recently, along with fiarly detailed specifications. One can only conclude if the specifications are that detailed, about all that is needed is a first order. I know of at least one major airline who is already committed to these aircraft. They expect to be either the first or second announced order. It is clear, at least to me, that negotiations involving the sale of these aircraft are quite advanced, even if it is unannounced. I think you comments regarding airbus and R&D funding are perhaps an understatement. Under current trade accords, European Governments are no longer able to provide unlimited funding for Airbus. I believe Airbus is limited to obtaining about 45% of R&D funding this way, so ultimately the people who fund Airbus R&D must believe in the commercial benefits of the products. This was not the case when previous Airbus aircraft were launched. If Airbus wishes to launch A3XX, it means other aircraft, for which there may already be clearly defined markets, probably cannot be launched. Timing is also key. If A3XX follows 747-500/600 by 3 years, that is a lot of ground to make up. I don't think it is a big secret that a fair number of MD-11 sales were because Boeing couldn't guarantee anything approaching reasonable delivery in the early days of the 747-400 program. If you wanted a long range, high capacity wide body any time soon, MD-11 was the only game around. In retrospect a fair number of airlines now apparently have second thoughts about this aircaft. A sizeable portion of the passenger fleet of MD-11 is going out of passenger service, and the failure of the aircaft to deliver on fuel economy appears to be the main reason Delta gave up on Hong Kong. It's no secret that AA didn't like the performance, and at one point, refused to accept delivery of the aircraft because of it. I think there is one other potential problem with A3XX. Engines. New engines have become very very expensive. So painful that traditionally enemies like GE/Pratt have been forced to team. I have to wonder how enthusiastic any of the engine makers would be if A3XX requires an all new engine. Big expense, quesitonable market, and the engine makers are all private companies, they don't get Government handouts to fund the R&D. I think it is also clear the given the state of government in Europe, enthusiam for very large taxpayer supported project like airbus is wanning. The French are forcing ratinalization in the Aircraft/Defense sectors simply because they cannot afford not to any longer. I think the key issues for Airbus on A3xx aren't technical, they're financial. my opinions anyway. From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:01 Message-ID: The BBC World Service had a fairly long piece today on the B747X and A3XX. Unhappily I did not record it, and was pretty sleepy when I heard it. They claimed the 747 "cross subsidized" other Boeing aircraft. They forecast a merger of the two French plane makers. They thought Farnborough would be critical as to the two super- jumbos. I don't think the piece was very well informed, but it was interesting that they thought the subject worth the time. -- Gerry From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:01 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: AT3@reedycreek.stanford.edu (Arnold Tang) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Stanford University Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:01 Message-ID: One thing to remember about the success of the B747 is that it is also a highly successful cargo aircraft. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I've been told that some routes make more money on cargo in the belly and up front than the seats do. The 747 is also unmatched for landing-shortage airports, and for carrying large or great quantities of cargo. The large-diameter-fuselage A-3XXX may open up previously unidentified possibilities for economical air freight currently not addressed by the 747-400 (and even the 747-X with no improvement in fuselage diameter). From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:02 Message-ID: In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca wrote: > > So, before saying that Airbus has to build a brand new plane from > scratch at great expense, and Boeing can just extend its 747 at little > expense, I would be more interested in a comparison of the major systems > which Boeing and Airbus would have to design FROM SCRATCH for their new > big planes and which systems could be used with few modifications from > their existing planes. One of the greatest savings realized by building a derivative airplane as opposed to an all-new airplane that is often overlooked by people outside the industry is the reduced cost of the tooling. While there may be enough differences in a derivative airplane to make it almost entirely new except for its appearance, the EXTREMELY expensive tooling for the previous model(s) generally can be modified very cost-effectively or used as is. The tooling savings alone from a derivative can make a substantial difference in the eventual purchase price of the airplane, something which has become of critical importance to the airlines these days. Tooling used to be of little significance to me until I produced a video for Boeing several years ago for use in recruiting tooling engineers. That project was quite an education for me, and I've since come to realize that without good tooling, you're wasting your time. The best design and the best assembly mechanics in the world won't amount to a hill of beans if the tooling is even just a tiny bit off. In terms of quality and tolerances, the tooling has to be more exact than the airplane. VERY expensive stuff... C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:02 Message-ID: In article , C. Marin Faure wrote: >Of course, the SST never materialized, so the 747 continued in its very >successful role as a passenger carrier, but that was not the intention. >If the SST HAD been put into production, you would not see any 747s in >passenger service today, assuming Juan Tripp's plan had continued through >to fruition. Actually, the SST got axed at least partly because it wasn't going to be as useful as subsonic airliners simply due to the sonic boom problem. That problem wasn't one that could be made to go away by throwing more money at it. Even if the SST had survived, the huge drop in seat-mile costs that came with the 747 (and other widebodies) would have meant there was always a market for cheap subsonic travel. I doubt any SST with the equivalent capacity of a 707 could come close to a 747 when looking at raw seat-mile numbers, and practical experience with Concorde tends to bear this out. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:02 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:02 Message-ID: Previously In article I wrote: > Pratt has the PW4098 with one customer (Korean Air), GE > has the 100,000lb-thrust GE90 without a customer. Is the ultra- > long-range B777-200X imminent? Just some additional tidbits: according to Flight International, Air France is seriously considering the GE90-powered B777-300. Also, it's reported that Singapore favors the B777-100X while American favors the B777-200X. BTW, Airbus said that they had shelved the plan to sue Boeing last week. -- H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@cris.com) From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jmaddaus@gte.com (John S. Maddaus -- WinTrumpet) Subject: Morning News Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GTE Labs Inc Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:03 Message-ID: Heard on WBZ Boston this morning: 1) The FAA is going to require primary flight control mods to all 737s in the wake of USAir 427 and UA Colorado Springs. Anyone have a clue on what these mods are and how extensive they might be? Is the FAA just shooting in the dark here or have they discovered something? Seems like kind of a general statement but leaves me a little disconcerted. Haven't heard much on 427 for some time now. 2) Also, according to Francis, an explosion near the center fuel tank did occur on TWA800, but they still do not know the cause. jmaddaus@gte.com From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Burns <75230.3537@CompuServe.COM> Subject: accident theory Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:03 Message-ID: In a recent New Yorker Magazine article about the unsolved 737 crash in Pittsburgh some years ago there was a mention of a line of science called "accident theory." Anyone know anything about it? From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:03 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jbtex@aol.com (JbTex) Subject: Takeoff wheel spin Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jbtex@aol.com (JbTex) Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:03 Message-ID: As a casual observer of a/c, I've got a question. When jet airliners take off, they seem to tuck their landing gear away soon after liftoff. Is any retardation applied to the spinning wheels before they're lifted into their stowage position? Or can they still be spinning after they're up? Thx Jim From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Subject: Re: 737 NACA inlet with moving parts? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:04 Message-ID: The rough field 737 a/c had several small changes to set them apart. There were small "wands" that projected out in front of the engine intakes which would blast bleed air downward and forward of the intake to blow FOD out of the way. There was also some additional metal in the belly skins to account for the beating taken by the skin when struck by gravel. There may have been changes to the undercarridge as well. Don't know how many were built; I think there may be a couple in India or Pakistan. John Gezelius Alexandria, VA From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ei7gm@iol.ie (Paul Kearney) Subject: Re: 737 NACA inlet with moving parts? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Ireland On-Line Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:04 Message-ID: " : >The aircon pack inlets below the wing root also have articulated : >doors on the 73 but rather than vortex generators they have slush deflector : >doors, : I've read that some 737-200s were equipped for operating out : of unimproved airfields. Supposedly, they were equipped with : (among other things) air jets at the bottoms of the nacelle : inlets, to blow debris away from the intakes. Is this slush : deflector door part of that package? : And just how many of these "unimproved-field" -200s (if : any) did Boeing actually build? Greetings to one and all. My understanding is that the changes were based upon a "major-ish mod kit" it included 2 probes that protruded from under the front nacelle of each engine which as said blew the debris away and down before the engine had the power to suck the stuff up into itself and a large plate attached to the nose-wheel-strut along with smaller nose-wheel doors made up a plate that stopped any debris thrown up by the nose wheel from denting/puncturing the skin behind the nose-wheel-well. (If you've ever seen a 737 like this you'll never forget the size of the nose-wheel plate ! ) The example shown to me was of a field made of "gravel" (as opposed to asphalt/concrete) where pitting of the fuselage woudl result along with mega-blade-loss from ingestion of the gravel itself. The doors on the air condx ducts are powered for different levels of required outside air and I think theyre controlled by the air condx packs but I wont put any money on it :-) The orignal message of this thread was enquiring about the apu deflector vain/door which pops out into the airflow when the apu is switched on. Spanner? What Spanner ? From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:04 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: 737 NACA inlet with moving parts? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:04 Message-ID: In article "David K. Cornutt" writes: >I've read that some 737-200s were equipped for operating out >of unimproved airfields. Supposedly, they were equipped with >(among other things) air jets at the bottoms of the nacelle >inlets, to blow debris away from the intakes. Is this slush >deflector door part of that package? > >And just how many of these "unimproved-field" -200s (if >any) did Boeing actually build? > Probably less than 30. The package was an add-on option and so is not discernable from the model number (737-2xxx). The full package consists of vortex blowers on each nacelle, a gravel deflector on the nosewheel, a teflon undercoat on the belly and a mesh grille inside each engine intake. Variations were made depending on customer specifications, eg. some Alaska 737s have the vortex blowers but not the gravel deflector. >From personal observations and photos I have seen, the kit was installed on 737s of Wien, Alaska, Saudia, Air Tanzania, President of Niger, Nordair Canada and (possibly) Quebecair. The Wien examples are now with NWT Air and the Nordair fleet was absorbed into Canadian Airlines. Brian From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: meyerted@aol.com (MeyerTed) Subject: Re: Jet Engine Containment/GE90 Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: meyerted@aol.com (MeyerTed) Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:05 Message-ID: A while back, Steven Foister of GEC-Marconi Avionics posted some observations about containment, along with the following: "Anyway, I am sure that someone from GE will write in and refute me..." Well, here it goes: First, the GE90 does not have "a much heavier fan blade." These blades are made of composite materials and, although they are dimensionally larger, are about the same weight or lighter than those of our competitors. Second, and more importantly, the implication that the engine has still not completely passed the containment test is incorrect. The GE90 was fully certified by the FAA in February 1995. There are absolutely no temporary waivers or exemptions associated with the FAA certification. In addition, the engine has also been fully certified by the European airworthiness authorities (JAA and CAA) with no waivers or exemptions. The FAA did allow GEAE to perform the containment test by releasing the fan blade at the base of the airfoil (which is not "half way up the blade"), rather than the dovetail. This approval was granted after GEAE successfully demonstrated that the composite fan blades are "prime reliable," meaning that no mechanism could be found that would cause the blade to fail below the base of the airfoil. The GE90 has been in service on the 777 for nearly a year. During that time, the fleet has logged more than 20,000 engine flight hours - approximately 15,000 of which have been in service with British Airways - with no in-flight operational disruptions and a dispatch reliability rate of 99.95%. Based on the data we have access to, the GE90 is the most reliable engine on the 777. Hope that is helpful to all here, but feel free to contact us with additional questions. Ted Meyer GE Ted.Meyer@corporate.ge.com Jamie.Jewell GE Aircraft Engines Jamie.Jewell@ae.ge.com From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:05 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:05 Message-ID: >>Apologies if I missed any. > > Yeah, you missed some. It's computed on deaths or accidents per RPM, > revenue passenger mile, or something. There are over 1,000 MD-80 > racking up RPM's right now. > > The listing I saw was at a Boeing presentation, where they were > discussing USAir 427 and the 737's fourth place. In any kind of service reliability or safety assessment, one is always faced with the choice of which incidents to record over what measure of operation. With air accidents, the two types of occurrence which are most often cited are:- a) deaths, and b) hull losses. Possible measures of operation are:- i) revenue passenger miles (RPM), ii) revenue passenger hours, ii) revenue flight hours, and iii) revenue flight cycles (take-off plus (hopefully!) landing). There are no prizes for spotting that one obtains completely different statistics depending on the choice of measure. Not only that, but the ranking of two models of aircraft with respect to "safety" will often vary. If you want to make air transport the safest ever mode of travel, quote "hull losses per RPM". If you want a slightly less optimistic (more realistic?) picture, quote "deaths per flight cycle". I discount another measure of "safety" that I have seen ("hull losses per number of examples in service") as being totally misleading, and not a well-defined measure of anything. 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 Fri Aug 23 13:45:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: APU, was MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? 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: 23 Aug 96 13:45:06 Message-ID: >This is that same as the L-1011 installation. The difference is that the >L-1011 APU (which is a derivative of the PT-6) is much louder and seems >to blow much hotter air than the DC-10 (which I think is a Garret unit). Note the standard definition of an APU: A device that converts Jet-A into noise. I too have had to stand next to an a/c with a running APU. After about an hour, you are not a happy camper..... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433 From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:06 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Alecs Bains" Subject: Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design? Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Netcom Canada Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:06 Message-ID: John M. Hunt wrote in article ... > > >I've had MD-80 pilots for an airline that will remain nameless say that > >under certain c/g conditions, they run out of elevator up-trim on final > >approach. As a result, they have to physically horse the nose up for the > >flare, such as it is. > > Interesting. Have you heard any similar stories of inadequate > nose-down available trim? > >I am currently working on my Commercial Pilot licence but I also work as a ramp serviceman for a large company in Vancouver, B.C.. I service MD-80 aircraft on a regular basis and from a ramp standpoint the MD-80 is not one of the most liked airplanes in the sky. It is very difficult to load when Pax loads are high due to small baggage compartments and it is very very tail heavy. When towing and pushing out EXTREME caution must be used as abrupt accelerating or braking action will make the aircraft bob up and down violently. Also it has a critical problem. In any weather from -5c - 15c the wings must be checked for ice due to a clear icing problem. This is caused by a cold soaking problem when fuel is in the tanks after flight. It is the only aircraft that needs to be de - iced in the summer. This is almost comical. On a positive note however I must admit that rarely if ever have I ever seen a mechanical delay to an Md-80. - -- Alecs Bains / Vancouver , B.C. , CANADA From kls Fri Aug 23 13:45:07 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter Ladkin Subject: Wave Vortex Avoidance Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 23 Aug 96 13:45:07 Message-ID: Things are getting a little better in Cyberspace. I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune: [begin quoted article] U.S. Orders Planes to Stay Farther Behind Jumbos WASHINGTON (WP) - The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered dozens of smaller regional and business aircraft to fly greater distances behind jumbo jets when landing to avoid air disturbances that flow from the wings of the large planes. The new rules might cause delays at some airports. In addition to a 6-mile(9.6-kilometer) mandatory separation between smaller aircraft and the biggest jets, such as the Boeing 747, these aircraft must also maintain a 5-mile separation between themselves and the Boeing 757. [end quoted article] I thought that this couldn't be saying quite what was going on, because I believe the Air Traffic Controller's Handbook talks about separation between Heavy, Large and Small aircraft, not between types, and furthermore there's no `requirement' in the FAR, or even advice in the AIM, for separation that discriminates aircraft by type. So I looked at the FAA WWW site, and in 5 minutes of surfing, found FSAT 96-12/FSGA 96-07, which redefines the classification of aircraft into Heavy/Large/Small. New is H: \geq 255000lbs; L: \geq 41000lbs & < 255000lbs; S: <41000lbs. "This action moves 55 aircraft into the small category that were previously classified as large. [...] THe SF-340 and ATR-42 will be exempt from the small category and will be classified as large aircraft for separation purposes. On-going studies may exempt other aircraft in the future." I'm pleased that I can now get accurate information on newsworthy topics direct from the (pardon me, fellas) horse's mouth. But I continue to regret that the news services feel the need to rework the FAA's notice to make it (in my view) more imprecise before distributing it. It's a trivial exercise to rework the news story above to reflect the contents of the FSAT accurately, without using up more column space. Peter. From kls Tue Sep 3 01:16:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing launches 757-300 launched at Farnborough Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Date: 03 Sep 96 01:16:50 Message-ID: Boeing kicked off Farnborough with an announcement of 68 orders valued at $6.3 billion, including the launch order for the 757-300. Notably, the 747-500X/600X were *not* launched at the show, and Boeing says it will not happen later in the show. (Airbus is planning their round of announcements for Tuesday.) The 757-300 was launched with a single $875 million order for 12 plus 12 options by Condor Flugdienst, a German charter operator owned by Lufthansa. First deliveries are scheduled for 1999. They'll be configured with seating for 252 passengers, a 20% increase over the 210 single-class seats in Condor's current 757-200s. No word on engine choice but with the exception of one leased oddball, Condor's 757-200s have PW2040s (the only PW-equipped passenger 757s I've seen with them instead of PW2037s), so PW seems likely. Here's a summary of the 68 orders Boeing announced: Air Berlin 737-400 (1) Airtours 767-300(ER) (1) Ansett Worldwide 737-700 (10) 737-300 (6) 767-300(ER) (9) British Airways 747-400 (4) (plus 10 existing deliveries moved up) 757-200 (3) 777-200 (3) ILFC 737-xxx (5) 757-200 (5) 767-300(ER) (5) LOT Polish Airlines 737-400 (2) 767-300(ER) (1) Maersk 737-500 (3) According to Boeing, these 68 orders bring Boeing's order total for the year to 405 aircraft, broken down as follows: 737 227 747 61 757 35 767 31 777 51 -- 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 Tue Sep 3 01:16:50 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca Date: 03 Sep 96 01:16:50 Message-ID: Karl Swartz wrote: > Wings are the same basic design, again with structural reinforcement > over time as they learned where the weak spots were and wanted to > increase gross weights. It was my impression that the -400 had some > significant changes beyond the winglets, but someone told me that a > 747-400(D) has a wing that's identical to the -300 or a late -200. >From the Canadian Airlines WEB site (http://www.cdnair.ca) How much weight does an additional six foot (.8m) wing tip extension and winglet add to the 747-400 wing? None! A weight saving of approximately 2,270 kg. (5,000 pounds) has been acheived in the wing with the application of the new aliminum alloys, which offset the weight increase of the wing tip extension and winglet. To me, this sounds like a redesign. New alloys used, longer wing by six feet, and the winglets. But I guess that to the industry, this is considered the same wing design with some modifications. Does this mean that Boeing didn't have to re-test the wing (wind test, try to break etc) ? Is there really such a thing as a brand new wing ? If Airbus builds it big jumbo jet, won't it wings really be a redesign of the 340s wings ? When you already have a FBW plane, is building a bigger wing (more lift capacity etc) really done from scratch, or can much of the past experience, many of the components (sensors, motors etc) be re-used or just adjusted for the new design ? I realise that making a wing bigger is more complex than just clicking on a point of the wing and stretching it on the computer, but doesn't computer technology make it a lot easier today to build a "new" wing ? So, my qestion is: is it really that simple to modify an existing wing? is it really that expensive to design a new wing ? is the difference between the 2 really that big now that computers and previous designs help ? From kls Tue Sep 3 01:16:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 03 Sep 96 01:16:51 Message-ID: In article , andrew m. boardman wrote: >In article , Chuanga@cris.com (H >Andrew Chuang) wrote: > >> Then, my question is will Boeing feel comfortable leaving the >> over-600-seat market to Airbus? > Note: I was referring to over-600, tri-class seating. >How much of a 600+ seat market is there, anyway? Different people will give you different predictions. If, and that's a big if, people in China travel as much as US citizens as the Chinese getting richer, then they will need very large planes. (China's population is about 5 times that of the US, and the US has slightly larger land area than China.) Nevertheless, that's at least twenty years down the road. >In any case, the Jane's >handbook in front of me indicates that a 747-400 will take up to 630 pax >in a single-class layout. Is this layout certifiable vis-a-vis >evacuation specs, and does it really exist in service with anyone? >Wouldn't this be just the thing for those oft-referenced "high-density >Asian routes"? JAL's and ANA's domestic B747s can carry some 500 passengers. Even in Asia, I'm not aware of any major carriers that use high-density configurations on regular international B747 services. On the Contrary, Taiwan's China Airlines still has a lone B747 that has the nine-abreast configuration in the regular economy class. Also, EVA Airways' eight-abreast Economy Deluxe seating on the B747s is quite popular among people travelling between the US and Taiwan. From kls Tue Sep 3 01:16:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Concentric Internet Services Date: 03 Sep 96 01:16:51 Message-ID: In article , M Carling wrote: >Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: >> Will Boeing also launch the B757-200X and/or -300X at Farnborough? > >It is my understanding that only charters are interested in a B757-300X, and >that not enough would be ordered to justify the required R&D. The B757-300X is very likely to be launched. It should be a cheap derivative. > >> Last year, airlines seemed to be very interested in the B777-100X. >> Now, it seems airlines are not too keen on this plane. > >BA and Qantas would love to fly SYD-LHR nonstop, and the B747-500X appears to >have insufficient range to do so with a full payload. Perhaps a 777-100X >could be built to fly the 10500mi between Sydney and London. I think the 777-100X will not be able to fly between SYD and LHR non-stop, at least not year-round. > >> Even Airbus >> can no longer keep Air Canada interested in the A340-8000. Thus, I >> think the B777-100X and the A340-8000 are unlikely to take off any >> time soon. Nevertheless, Boeing may need either the B777-100X and/ >> or the B767-400X to fill the gap between the B767-300 and the >> B777-200. > >Boeing decided to build the B777 because airlines rejected every Boeing >proposal for a B767-400X. If Boeing builds a plane larger than the B767-300 >and smaller than the B777-200, it will be the B777-100X. > IMHO, Boeing needs a plane to compete with the A330-200. The B777-100X may be acceptable for long-range operation. However, on short-to-medium haul, I doubt it can be as cost effective as the A330-200 (although, a B777-100X Lite had been mentioned before). >> Is the ultra-long-range B777-200X imminent? > >A B777-200X with greater range than the B777-200IGW any time soon? I doubt >it. > By 2000, it's definitely possible. Furthermore, both competitors are proposing new models (the A340-500 and the MD-XXLR) to compete in the same market segment. The B777-200X should be the first to go into service, if it's launched. From kls Tue Sep 3 01:16:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: The University of Iowa Date: 03 Sep 96 01:16:51 Message-ID: On 23 Aug 1996, don shifris wrote: > I think there is one other potential problem with A3XX. Engines. New engines > have become very very expensive. So painful that traditionally enemies like > GE/Pratt have been forced to team. I have to wonder how enthusiastic any of > the engine makers would be if A3XX requires an all new engine. Big expense, > quesitonable market, and the engine makers are all private companies, they > don't get Government handouts to fund the R&D. > As the A3XX will be substantially bigger than the B747-500 and 600, I would think that one or more of the B777 engines would be a reasonable match. If this would be too much thrust, they could use two B777 engines inboard and two B747-600 engines outboard. According to Aviation Week, such a two-engine scheme was proposed by the engine makers for the B747-600 and deemed workable, but Boing insisted on all-new engines of intermediate size. If the builders refuse to do the same for the A3XX, this option would be available for Airbus. Monetary value of comments V=2.0 x 10(e-2) dollars (U.S.) Peter Wezeman From kls Tue Sep 3 01:16:51 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 03 Sep 96 01:16:51 Message-ID: In article , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > What we have been discussing earlier was whether there would be a future > for the over-600-passenger planes. The problem with the Very Large Tranport or whatevery you want to call it is twofold, and the biggest problem has nothing to do with the airplane. Boeing and/or Airbus and the engine manufacturers will build anything anyone wants if they're willing to pay enough to make the projects viable. The far greater problem is the airports. An A-3XX or a 747-derivative (neither of which is a foregone conclusion at this time, by the way) will be able to use the existing facilities at the airports that will be the most likely destinations for these airplanes. A VLT or VLA will be MUCH heavier, which means runways, taxiways,and ramp areas will have to be strengthened and widened. Gate capacities, check-in, customs and immigration facilities, parking lots, baggage and ground transportation systems, etc. all will have to be expanded and upgraded, which is a very expensive undertaking. Try driving from London to Heathrow, or out to the airport at Singapore today. Now envision trying to do it with no change in the transportation system, but with larger planes dumping huge groups of people into the system every few hours. Who's going to pay for the airport improvements? It's difficult enough trying to add a runway at an airport today (like Seatac here in Seattle). Are passengers, who are demanding cheaper and cheaper air transportation, going to be willing to pay big ticket taxes for the privillege of sitting on a plane with six or seven hundred other people? Will the local communities have any luck raising taxes or floating bonds for airport improvements that will enable VLAs to sail in and out over the surrounding neighborhoods? Which brings up the issue of noise. An airplane this big is not going to tiptoe in and out of an airport, even with today's quieter high-bypass engines. The airframe noise alone is anticipated to be considerably greater that of a 747, for example. Yes, these arguments were raised to some degree when we rolled out the 747. But the situation was different back then. The environment was not as hot an issue as it is today. Many airports hadn't yet been hemmed in by housing developments as they are today. Airlines were regulated, which ensured a profit up to a point. Airlines were not as concerned about equipment costs as they are in today's competitive, anything-goes environment. And back then, people looked at the 747 and thought how fabulous it would be to go somewhere on it. Today, most people (in North America and Europe at any rate) would look at a VLA and think about what a giant pain in the butt it's going to be to wait in line to get on it, and then wait in line to get off it, and wait in line to get their baggage, and wait in line to get to the parking area, and wait in line to get on the freeway, and wait in line to.... While a few airlines have indicated they would be interested in a plane of this size, most seem to feel that an airplane that big is not needed at this time. The only thing it really has going for it is the ability to send one plane on a trip instead of two or three, which certainly would help ease congestion airside, at any rate. The congestion landside at today's existing airports would be pretty staggering, however. Do I think a VLA will ever be built? I suspect that eventually, as fuel prices demand moving more people for less cost, and assuming the number of air travellers continues to grow, making congestion an even greater problem than it is now, the benefits of VLAs will make the costs worth it. By the same token, I believe we'll eventually have SSTs or HSCTs, once the fuel consumption problem is dealt with, either through new technology or new fuel. But it's a ways off yet. The airplane spotters who cluster on top of the viewing mound at Munich airport don't need to invest in wide angle lenses just yet. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Tue Sep 3 01:16:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Date: 03 Sep 96 01:16:52 Message-ID: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > >And before I would beleive that Boeing can just extend the 747 without > >redesign costs etc, I would like to know more about what changes had to > >be done between the 747-100 and 200, 200 to 300 and 300 to 400. Are the > >landing gears the same ? Are all the doors the same design, even the > >ones on the second deck ? Are the wings identical ? Made of the same > >materials ? Are engines the same ? Obviously, the cockpit in the 400 was > >re-designed. > Wings are the same basic design, again with structural reinforcement > over time as they learned where the weak spots were and wanted to > increase gross weights. It was my impression that the -400 had some > significant changes beyond the winglets, but someone told me that a > 747-400(D) has a wing that's identical to the -300 or a late -200. The 747-400 has wing extensions plus the winglets. So the wing is not entirely identical to the wings on the -200 and -300 series. The -400 has a two-person flight crew instead of the previous three-person crew, which took A LOT of redesign to the airplane's systems. The -400 also has BITE (Built In Test Equipment) to report airplane faults and suggest repair procedures to the ground mechanics, which the previous versions of the plane did not have. An interesting variant of the -400 are the domestic versions we built for Japan. The planes are -400s except for the wings, which are identical to the wings on the -200 and -300. The airlines (I believe both JAL and ANA bought these planes) will be used on short domestic flights which will rapidly accumulate cycle time but not airframe time. Then when the cycles are getting high, they intend to add the -400's wingtip extensions and winglets and put the planes into long-haul international service, which racks up airframe time but not cycle time. They believe this will give them the most value for their purchase. C. Marin Faure author, Flying a Floatplane From kls Tue Sep 3 01:16:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Date: 03 Sep 96 01:16:52 Message-ID: In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>It is my understanding that only charters are interested in a B757-300X, >>and that not enough would be ordered to justify the required R&D. > >At least one major US carrier was very interested in the 757-300X a >few years ago. From what I've heard, I'd be surprised if the 757-300X >is *not* launched by the end of 1997. Quite. There have been rumours that it is about to be launched for a few months now. The latest reports in Flight International suggest that we may get the 757-200X launched this year as well. Apparently the new models will be as similar to the existing version as possible, in order to cut down development costs. > >>BA and Qantas would love to fly SYD-LHR nonstop, and the B747-500X appears to >>have insufficient range to do so with a full payload. Perhaps a 777-100X >>could be built to fly the 10500mi between Sydney and London. > >Unfortunately, such a plane would have a very small market, yet >would require a lot of development cost. I think it's more likely >to see a trick like UA's ORD-HKG non-stop, which is limited to only >260 pax to keep the weight down -- fly a 747-500X SYD-LHR but don't >sell all the seats. With a light load, perhaps the -500X can do it. Does it really matter that much? It might cut a 23 hour journey time to 20 or 21 hours perhaps, but it isn't going to do much better than that. That doesn't reduce the degree of hideousness by much, IMO. > >>Boeing decided to build the B777 because airlines rejected every Boeing >>proposal for a B767-400X. If Boeing builds a plane larger than the B767-300 >>and smaller than the B777-200, it will be the B777-100X. > >Good point, though a stretched 767 should be cheaper to buy and to >operate than a shrunken 777, though it most likely wouldn't have >the same range. When it comes down to putting money on the table, >airlines often change their minds at the last minute, sometimes in >rather perplexing ways. Boeing sources insist that the 767-400X is still under active consideration and that there is a team working on it. On top of that, the 777-100X does not appear as attractive to airlines as it did a year ago. I'd rate this one a 50-50 proposition to be built. It isn't first on their list of priorities (the 747-500/600 and the 757-300 appear to be that for the moment), but I think it may be launched next year. > >>A B777-200X with greater range than the B777-200IGW any time soon? >>I doubt it. > >Folks at Boeing seem to think the engines are growing fast enough to >make an even longer range 777-200 a reasonable prospect much sooner >than they thought. The latest proposals Boeing has been presenting >suggest the very long-range 777 will be much closer to the -200 in >size than the original 777-100X proposals. That makes the airlines >much happier because they were worried about the -100X not giving >them enough capacity on the long routes. I keep hearing about this one. At the end of last year, it seemed that the 747-500/600 and the 777-100X were almost certain to be launched this year. The 777-100X now seems much less discussed and this new, long range 777-200X keeps being discussed. The 777-100X was in some sense an attempt to counter the A340-8000. Nobody seems to be buying the A340-8000, so Boeing is probably less concerned about having something to compete with it than they were. If Boeing does launch the 777-200X instead of the -100X, that of course makes the 767-400X much more likely. (One wonders if it means that something like the 767-300ERY is on the cards again, too). 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 Sep 3 01:16:52 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM References: Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Date: 03 Sep 96 01:16:52 Message-ID: In article , don shifris wrote: >>I don't think there is any doubt that Boeing will launch the B747-500X/ >>-600X. (Supposedly, most airports can handle the B747X without any major >>updates.) It's most likely that Boeing will officially announce the >>launch during the Farnborough Air Show in September. I don't think Airbus >>will let Boeing have the monopoly and the A3XX will most likely be built, >>too. However, Airbus does not seem to have secure all the funding and >>potential partners. Airbus will be at least three years behind. > >The imminent lauch of the -500/-600 747 received considerable play in Aviation >Week recently, along with fiarly detailed specifications. One can only >conclude if the specifications are that detailed, about all that is needed is >a first order. I know of at least one major airline who is already committed >to these aircraft. They expect to be either the first or second announced >order. It is clear, at least to me, that negotiations involving the sale of >these aircraft are quite advanced, even if it is unannounced. A Boeing source was quoted in the Independent on Sunday (a London Newspaper) as saying that 'The launch customer will be an Asian airline'. This is almost certainly either Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines. Flight International last week also reported the United is likely to convert some of its recent 747-400 orders to one of the new types (which is why the engines weren't specified for the entire order). The 747-500/600 are going to be launched at Farnborough. I don't think there is much doubt about this now. The questions ares whether the new 757 varients are going to be launched there as well, and what Airbus is going to do to try to steal Boeing's thunder. 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 Sep 3 01:16:53 1996 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautic