From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:21 From: mlyon Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: mlyon@ibm.net Karl Swartz wrote: > > I read an article about the 747-400F a while back. It's main benefit > compared to the 747-200F is greater range with a full cargo load. On almost every route, the 400F outperforms the 200F. > For > many interesting cargo routes, however, it's range isn't enough more > to eliminate fuel stops. I think SFO-NRT was an example. Both planes > need a fuel stop, usually at ANC. The fact that the -400F could fly a > greater percentage of the flight before stopping is neither interesting > nor useful. Are you considering only transpac routes? There are many others in the world where the extra range of the 400F pays off very well. > With a plentiful supply of inexpensive -200s which can be > converted to freighters, the -400F was claimed to be a fairly difficult > sell. It's value is becoming more widely known as information dribbles out from the three main operators (CV, SQ, Asiana). Brgds, s/Mark From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:21 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics McDD was showing a model of the "MD-17" in civilian garb at Farnborough this year, and I know from talking to people at Douglas (sorry...Boeing Company/McDonnell Douglas Division, Long Beach), that both FedEx and UPS were informally involved in the original design of the C-17. Sure they may be expensive, but both of those organizations measure man hours and movements to the nth degree, and any saving of time or movement would save them tremendous amounts of money over the long term. Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:21 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>CARGOLUX which used 747 400F said that they have lot of difficulties >>to rentabilised this aircraft. >I read an article about the 747-400F a while back. It's main benefit >compared to the 747-200F is greater range with a full cargo load. For >many interesting cargo routes, however, it's range isn't enough more >to eliminate fuel stops. I think SFO-NRT was an example. Both planes >need a fuel stop, usually at ANC. The fact that the -400F could fly a >greater percentage of the flight before stopping is neither interesting >nor useful. With a plentiful supply of inexpensive -200s which can be >converted to freighters, the -400F was claimed to be a fairly difficult >sell. It's not a range problem. But the initial cost is higher than a modification of a 747 200. CARGOLUX has to fly more and his market has small potential. Airbus makes a study under the potential of new aircraft vs second hand one. The conclusion is that for high capacity (B747), the return on investment is better wirh a second hand one. From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:21 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> For many interesting cargo routes, however, it's range isn't enough more >> to eliminate fuel stops. I think SFO-NRT was an example. Both planes >> need a fuel stop, usually at ANC. The fact that the -400F could fly a >> greater percentage of the flight before stopping is neither interesting >> nor useful. >Are you considering only transpac routes? There are many others in the >world where the extra range of the 400F pays off very well. I said many routes, as that's what was said in the article I referred to (probably in AW&ST, though I still haven't found it). AW&ST lists cargo capacity of the 747-200F as 245,300 lbs, with the -400F only a little (9.4%) more at 268,300 lbs. Their range numbers do not appear to be credible (4,080 miles for the -200F, 3,165 miles for the -400F) but that may be comparing max range for the -200F to full load range for the -400F. Here's what Boeing has to say about the 747-400F on www.boeing.com: Weights and Ranges (carrying 124 tons of payload) Max TO weight Range 800,000 lbs 3,200 nm 833,000 lbs 3,760 nm 850,000 lbs 4,050 nm 875,000 lbs 4,450 nm Compared to the -200F, Boeing says The -400 Freighter can carry 124 tons (113,000 kg) of cargo more than 4,400 nautical miles. An additional 26 tons of payload or 1,200 nautical mile range is possible compared to Boeing's 747-200 Freighter. If I'm reading that correctly, it sounds like a -200F can carry 98 tons 4,450 nm, or 124 tons 3,250 nm. SFO-NRT is 4,452 nm, beyond the range of either model. Only by a very small margin for the highest MGTOW -400F, but ditching off the Golden Gate or in Tokyo Bay doesn't win any points. :-) Since both must make a fuel stop, the -400F's range advantage is of no consequence. It can carry a higher payload, but the segment distance is such that the -200F payload is not substantially reduced by the need for a heavy fuel load. Across the Atlantic, JFK-AMS is 3,166 nm. That's within the max load range of the -200F, so again, the -400F's additional range doesn't buy anything. In each example, the -400F's advantages are a payload increase of less than 10%, fuel burn reduction of 10% to 16% (according to Boeing), and elimination of the flight engineer. Given the huge disparity in capital costs of a new 747-400F versus a 747-200, possibly converted from a full depreciated 747-200B, these advantages are not terribly compelling. There was one group of routes where the article claimed the -400F does have a measureable advantage. I don't recall where that was, but a good guess would be routes like SIN-LAX. At 7,620 nm non-stop, a -200F needs two stops. (It could do the job with one close to the midpoint, but there aren't any conveniently located airports and that would require a substantial payload penalty.) In contrast, a high MGTOW -400F can in theory make the trip with only one stop without a dramatic payload penalty. (I'm not sure what would be a reasonable place to stop, though.) -- 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 Jan 1 20:59:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:22 From: lestroyens@aol.com (LesTroyens) Subject: Counterfeit parts Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Public concern about counterfeit parts is being whipped up by the media on a regular basis. In the opinion of the Group is this a worthy concern? Has there ever been a fatality on a commercial airliner attributable to counterfeit parts? Santa Claus brought me the thriller novel "Airframe", and there is a subplot about, you guessed it... From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:22 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: summary of civilian airliners attacked by military forces References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Jonathan Thornburg wrote: > The 1983 KAL incident has been the subject of numerous books, of > which > > Seymour M Hersh > "The Target is Destroyed" > Vantage (Random House), New York, 1986, 1987 > ISBN 0-394-75527-8 (pbk) > > seems to have a particularly solid basis, including a good bibliography Having been a USAF Intelligence Officer, I can tell you that you shouldn't believe everything you read, especially if it's written by Seymour Hersh. He obviously had an axe to grind with the USAF. Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:22 From: libove@*compgen.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: "Airframe" and DFDR's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Michael Crighton's new book "Airframe" (a fictional novel about a fictional airframer investigating the cause of severe porpoising in a fictional widebody) claims that an extremely high (~80) percentage of Digital Flight Data Recorders in modern aircraft are partially or fully non-functional. Does anyone have any information to refute/prove this? It seems extremely unlikely. Thanks - -- Jay Vassos-Libove Senior Software Engineer +1 (770) 552-0543 (home) Computer Generation, Inc. +1 (404) 705-2867 (work) libove*@*compgen.com postmaster*@*compgen.com webmaster*@*compgen.com [ Remove "*" from e-mail address before replying! Spam bait. *sigh* ] From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:22 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: 767-400ERX (Was `Delta A340 order?') References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca Niels Sampath wrote: > Today's (Dec18th) `Flight Int'l' magazine has a decent little article on > Boeing's efforts to get Delta to launch the 767-400. These efforts > indicate that the 6m stretched 767 proposal is targeted at the > A330-200 (which lends credence to the A330-200 size/range class). > It also means that if Boeing is doing this Delta is not interested in > any A340 or 777 order after all(?). Out of curiosity, are these just speculations from that magazine, of report from leaks by "an informed source", or based on an official Boeing statement ? If an official Boeing statement, is this designed as a strategy against Airbus, or reporting actual true blue reality ? I tend to disbeleive that such statements would be "official" since companies involved in negotiations would not really wish to report what is REALLY happening. From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:22 From: musjnd@gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch) Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services In article , jfmezei writes: > I am puzzled that Boeing doesn't seem to be pushing a roll out of the > 777-FBW system across its entire product line to enhance its position > against Airbus which has a fair amount of cockpit commonality across its > models. I would imagine it's because Boeing wants to keep commonality between each particular *class* of airplane ... thus an airline operating earlier versions of the 737 or 767 or whatever doesn't have troubles retraining for the new setup. By contrast, the 747-400, at least as far as I noticed, was marketed almost like it was a completely new airplane (which it kinda is) ... - Jonathan Roddenberry, Asimov, Henson, Dr. Seuss, Mel Blanc, Friz Freleng ... Sigh ... From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:22 From: khowie@accessone.com (Keith Howie) Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AccessOne kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >FBW itself does not seem to have any significant marketing advantage. >Apparently cockpit commonality doesn't either -- Boeing's customers, >the airlines, are the ones who have pushed for updated cockpits at the >expense of maintaining commonality. One problem that Boeing (and Airbus as well) has is that the "airlines" don't necessarily speak with one voice on things like this. Depending on a number of factors, one airline may prefer commonality with previous models while another may want all the latest bells and whistles. This appears to be one of the things holding up the launch of the 747-500 and -600. Keith From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:22 From: hrose@rocza.kei.com (Helen Trillian Rose) Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. KLS> == Karl Swartz >> If Boeing is to produce a new version of the 767, would it retain the >> conventional 767 controls or migrate to the 777 style of controls ? KLS> I'd be very surprised if it did not retain the controls of the KLS> 767-300 more or less intact. Never mind that, but I imagine that cockpit commonality with DL's existing 757/767-200/767-300 fleet is a BIG selling point. Seat-wise, the 767-400 would be a perfect fit for DL. The Tristar replacement they've always wanted..... --Helen From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:22 From: s_odle@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Air Accident Investigation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. On 28 Dec 96 14:20:11 , davemclark@aol.com (Davemclark) wrote: >Can anyone mail me who is involved in accident investigation of any type, >civil or military, UK or US and in any role, ops or engineering. I am a >student of Aeronautical Engineering and would like to get into this field >but at the moment am just looking towards studying some aspect of it for a >final year project. All accident investigations within the Us are conducted byt the NTSB, they are in charge. The FAA participates when the NTSB askes or if the NTSB delegates the investigation to them. In other countries, that countries airworthiness authority is in charge, and the FAA/NTSB may participate if asked. To get into this field you would want to work fot the NTSB. From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:23 From: arch6@inlink.com (Arch McKinlay, VI) Subject: Re: Air Accident Investigation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McKinlay & Associates In article , davemclark@aol.com (Davemclark) wrote: > Can anyone mail me who is involved in accident investigation of any type, > civil or military, UK or US and in any role, ops or engineering. I am a > student of Aeronautical Engineering and would like to get into this field > but at the moment am just looking towards studying some aspect of it for a > final year project. I have been involved in several aerospace companies, the FAA's background work aand in software safety and system safety and teach software safety at University of Southern California (USC). IMHO, the people who qualify fro company or NTSB positions to investigate accidents are primarily pilots or ex-pilots, aerospace company experienced for a minimum of ten years, and heavily screened for problem-solving and attention-to-detail skills. If you intend to get into accident investigation sooner than the time it takes to get these qualifications, then you'd better join the military. In the military, a good engineering-minded pilot on second tour (approximately nine to twelve years of service) can be chosen to attend safety officers school and accident investigation classes. Through USC, we offer classes in aircraft and helicopter safety, accident investigation etc. that is at the Master's Degree level. The USAF has a similar program through University of Washington (UW), Seattle, WA. There are also fire and other investigative techniques taught through smaller universities and independent groups. I recently worked with an individual regarding qualifications for NTSB membership and his one strike against himself was non-pilot status. If you care for more information, email me. Happy New Year! cheers, arch From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:23 From: kennish@kabuki.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Ken A. Nishimura) Subject: Cost of Unscheduled Stop? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Just out of curiosity, what is the cost (fuel,time,wear/tear on A/C, and of course in $$) for an unscheduled stop for refueling? For example, on a non-stop from SFO-NRT, if they have to stop in Anchorage due to headwinds? ==Ken From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:23 From: irgenwer@ix.netcom.com (Kate was here) Subject: Re: GPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Quahaug Cannery Reply-To: irgenwer@ix.netcom.com My apologies to the ng for posting instead of using direct email. I tried to send email but it bounced. unknown@yama.mcc.ac.uk (Public Cluster) posted: >Hi, I am doing a project on DGPS. I am looking for a real time software >(source code in c ++ or other language) for interpreting the code >generated by the trimble receiver. The data format for Trimble GPS boxes is discussed in the manual for whatever Trimble box you may own. The newer models can do ascii dumps directly to your PC. Try reading the manual if you haven't already done so. If you haven't had a course in signal analysis, what you're taking on will be non-trivial and quite difficult. >Pls provide some information of >where I can get the source code for >doing Real-time DGPS and the >source for converting all GPS correction >into RTCM format. All >information about DGPS are welcome but the >immediate request is to >get some source code that can interpret the code >that are generated >by trimble gps receiver. Thank you. >Cheers. >TAY CHAI LENG I suggest you: 1) ask the folks at Trimble - if anyone knows about public domain software for their products, they do. Trimble is out on the net. Their node/domain name is trimble.com. I do not know if they have a web page, but they certainly have email. 2) try asking this question on sci.geo.geology or sci.geo.satellite-nav, rather than here. Most of the folks who use GPS for geodesy research are geologists and/or geophysicists, and you're likely to find some of them hanging out on the sci.geo news groups 3) ask the GPS gurus at JPL if your project is academic rather than commercial - JPL is very friendly toward educational inquiries. JPL has a large lump of GPS source code (called GyPSy if my memory serves me correctly). I do not know if their code can be used for Trimble data streams - it doesn't hurt to ask however. The node/domain for JPL is jpl.nasa.gov. Good Luck! "Kate was here"/Catherine M. Helm/Geology Dept - UCDavis lab email: helm@geology.ucdavis.edu/home email: irgenwer@ix.netcom.com From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:23 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca John Clear wrote: > I think some small grants/subsidies/etc to promote development > is very different then huge sums of money to fund entire product > development, start to finish. When you look at a specific project, perhaps it looks worse one way or the other. But when you look at the industry over a longer preiod of time, you *may* see many "acceptable" small grants that total up to a huge sum of money which would have been unacceptable to many had it been handed over in a single check. And even if ther were no directs benefits to commercial operation, any military/space contract will make the company bigger and may offer economies of scale and better negotiation with dealers. Hard to quantify such help, of course. From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:23 From: graemec@ibm.net Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) writes: >alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) writes: >>(I should say that I'm not against such grants/loans in principle - I'm >>against the pretence that only some governments make such >>grants/loans/subsidies.) >...It is worth noting that this support is *not* for commercial aircraft >since this engine is designed for planes with <6 seats. I always thought that a commercial aircraft manufacturer was one that made aeroplanes for profit and a non-commercial manufacturer was one that went broke or was subsidised by the government. Did Cessna stop producing aircraft commercially when they stopped building the Bobcat and began again when they started the 400 series? Does this make Honda a non-commercial manufacturer because they only produce little vehicles? >It is certainly a subsidy ... Yes, it is - and all the rest is excuses. >...since it is designed to help an industry that completely >died a couple years ago and to help GA planes to meet tougher >emission standards that undoubtably lie ahead. >I completely support this sort of "tweaking" of the free market when >the market is unable to fix itself. Without this engine we will never >be able to get rid of the 110 LL fuel that is both expensive and >environmentally hazardous. With only tiny variations, you sound just like an Airbus executive of 10-15 years ago. As Alexander said above, *nobody* is against subsidies, as Terry's contribution proves. It's just the hypocrisy which can become a little irritating. In general, I fail to understand the heat generated by this debate. My Econ 101 said that subsidies/tariffs/etc were bad because of the cost to the *host* economy (not foreigners) in misallocated resources and higher costs to other sectors of the host economy due to increased taxes and charges. To use the current jargon, attempts to tilt the playing field will only hurt those who do the tilting. If economic rationalism is right, the US should be cheering the Europeans on. Encouraging even greater subsidies for Airbus will result in an even weaker Europe to whom the US will sell even more Caterpillar dozers and Xeroxes and Compaqs and Westinghouse generators - only the number of Boeings will reduce. Well, we can't have everything... But maybe there are some flaws in the theory! The Americans seem really upset at these Airbus subsidies. And the Europeans seem intent on committing fiscal suicide by continuing to assist their industry. No, there couldn't be! That would mean that the whole push to free trade is just a scam by the strong to exploit the weak. No, they wouldn't do that ..would they? Graeme Cant From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:23 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Ben wrote: >In european system, there is no agency which makes rseach for >industry. Simply not true! Franch has ONERA, German has DLR, Dutch has NLR, British has DRA, ... European manufaturers also get research contracts from their governments (like many US manufacturers do). From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:23 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA In article , davidl@wr.com.au wrote: > Hi, > > I had a number of questions concerning fuel dumping: > > 1. What are the regulations on when and where fuel can be dumped ? I thumbed through my copy of the FAR's and didn't see anything on fuel dumping operationally speaking (there is of course a section in part 25 on fuel jettison system requirements). This would lead me to assume that in an emergency situation anything goes and in a non-emergency each carrier has its own guidelines. From my experience around ORD I know that planes usually tried to make it to an area over Lake Michigan to dump fuel. > 2. Does the fuel vaporise before reaching the ground ? In those cases where an aircraft didn't make it to Lake Michigan we never recieved a report of fuel hitting the ground. > 3. What would be a typical quantity of fuel that may be jettisoned ? It could be several thousand pounds. On some aircraft the takeoff wieght is greater than the landing weight so a problem requiring that the aircraft return to the field necessitates that the extra fuel be burned or dumped. Most airlines would rather burn it but in an emergency there may be no choice but to dump. Fuel dumping may also be required to maintain rate of climb in an engine out situation. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:23 From: krish@adnc.com (Chilukuri) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rohr In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... >Another alternative might be to get Pratt (and GE) to push the thrust >of the 62K engine up a bit, without going to the larger fan of the >A330's 65K-68K engines. Physically, this is essentially the same >engine as the 56K version used on the 747-400, and maybe also the 52K >version used on the A310, so 62k is probably already close to the >limits. > >Upsizing the 62K engine's fan just a little -- enough to get a bit >more thrust without resorting to the potentially substantial air- >frame mods needed to accomodate A330-class engines -- probably is >not an economically viable option for the engine manufacturers. Variable geometry, for example a variable nozzle, is a "last gasp" option that allows the engine manufacturer to boost thrust at critical climb segments without having to increase fan diameter. However, as Karl rightly points out, this is a relatively expensive modification, with substantial weight impact. I believe that the A320/V2500 engine has been ground-tested with a variable nozzle in order to overcome thrust limitations. Krish From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:23 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >The 767-300(ER) nominally uses a 60k (lbs thrust) engine, not 62k. >Still, it's not as large an increase as you'd expect. Hmm...ours (Qantas) use a 61,500 lb engine. So what is that? 60k or 62k :-) Regards, -- Simon Craig --- If it's not Boeing, then I'm not going! From kls Wed Jan 1 20:59:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:23 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>The 767-300(ER) nominally uses a 60k (lbs thrust) engine, not 62k. >>Still, it's not as large an increase as you'd expect. >Hmm...ours (Qantas) use a 61,500 lb engine. So what is that? 60k or 62k :-) For newer engines, I generally use the Pratt and Whitney values because you can easily identify them from the model number -- a PW4x60 nominally is a 60k lbs thrust engine, while a PW4x62 is a 62k engine. In a given application, the thrust ratings of the engines from each of the three manufacturers is different, so you can't readily compare them. A quick glance suggests PW ratings are lower than the others for the same application, so I'd say the 61.5k GE CF6-80s on your Qantas planes most closely approximates the 60k PWs. -- 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 Jan 1 20:59:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Jan 97 20:59:24 From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Gimli 767 nose gear (was: Emergency landing on water ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Patrik Andersin writes: > > An article in comp.risks 10.13 by Robert Dorsett says that ram > > air turbine serviced only the basic flight controls, but did not > > provide power for other surfaces, such as flaps. Radios and backup > > instrumentation was supplied initially by APU, later by battery power. > > The nose gear collapsed and the nose acted as very efficient speed brake. Marin Faure, in one of two articles saying roughly the same thing, writes: > Actually, this is wrong. The nosegear did not collapse during the > rollout. One end of Gimli field was used by a sports car club for road > rallys. ... The track was bordered by concrete Jersey barriers or some > other form of barrier fence. Because the 767 had no thrust reversers and > minimal braking, the landing rollout took it all the way to the car track > where it ran into one of these barriers just as it came to a stop. The > nose never even hit the ground, but sat down on top of the barrier. > ... > I don't know where the "skidding down the runway on its nose with fire > shooting out of things" idea started, maybe with the TV movie or the > book, but the reality of the situation was the damage was very slight > and the nosewheel did not collapse until it hit the race track barrier, > by which time the plane was barely moving. "The book" that Marin refers to is presumably "Freefall" (by William and Marilyn Hoffer, St. Martin's Press, 1989, ISBN 0-312-02919-5). The relevant part of Robert Dorsett's posting to Risks was simply a review of the book, including a synopsis of its technical content. In other words, it wasn't Robert Dorsett who said the gear collapsed, but the Hoffers. However, they said it in some detail, as I'll show below. I'll include one paragraph of Robert's review, which he said was originally posted in 1989 to rec.aviation, here: | The book is partially investigative reporting, partially schlock: | while it provides a detailed accounting of the events leading up to | the eventual landing, it also wastes an enormous amount of space on | what the passengers think, feel, etc--and in that respect rather | closely resembles the style Arthur Haily used in _Airport_. In other | words, it's light reading, and tries to be something for everyone. | Fortunately, though, the authors kindly segregate the chapters into | what's happening in the cockpit, and what's happening elsewhere. If | one sticks to the "Cockpit" (clearly labelled) chapters, it's tolerable | (but since the book itself is only 263 pages of double-spaced large | print and large margins, and less than half of it deals with the | technical issues, the $17.95 price tag isn't exactly worth it). And this is exactly my opinion. The excerpts below are selected for technical content, but nevertheless show the lurid writing style. (Yes, I do have a copy -- but I picked it up for 99 cents, remaindered.) About the nose gear, then: - Page 196: On the panel in front of Quintal, two green lights indicated that both main landing gear were down and locked. But another glowed amber, warning that the nose gear was partially down but not locked. Quintal immediately knew why... the nose gear had to push forward, against the wind... - Page 201: Pearson was too busy to notice that the forward gear had not locked. He had another problem on his mind. - Page 213: Two tires blew in the right main landing gear. Careening forward at 170 knots, far faster than normal, now he had to stop the craft before it slammed into something. Pearson jammed the balls of his feet high up on the rudder pedals and pushed with his final reserve of strength to activate the brakes. The nose dropped. He anticipated the familiar thump of the forward gear touching down. Instead he heard what sounded like the explosive bang! of a 12-gauge shotgun fired at close range. The right engine nacelle scraped the ground. They were now sliding down the runway on their nose and an engine pod amid a cascade of sparks. - Page 216: Looking to their right they [two RCMP officers] saw that the jet had just touched down. Its nose hit heavily against the pavement, creating a brilliant display of sparks and flowing smoke. - Page 221: Without a nosewheel to steer the aircraft, Pearson used differential braking. ... A new image appeared, improbable and confusing. A low metal guardrail stood in the middle of the runway, set along its length. Pearson leaned heavier on the right brake. The aircraft veered only slightly, skidding. The left side of its nose glanced off the low metal fence, shearing off the round wooden posts at their bases. And the fire: - Page 229: [As soon as the plane stopped] Smoke from an unknown source now poured into the cockpit. ... [It became] so thick they could barely see and almost could not breathe. - Page 247: The Gimli Fire Department arrived and located the smoke source. Under the belly of the aircraft, insulation was burning softly, apparently ignited by the friction of the nose-down landing. Firemen extinguished this, and a gentle breeze carried off the remaining wisps of smoke. And the repairs: - Page 251: At Gimli, Aircraft 604 was repaired sufficiently to allow Air Canada's chief 767 flying instructor, Dave Walker, along with Captain Bob Clarke, to fly it to Winnipeg where it underwent further extensive repairs for more than a month. Now, this is quite a bit of detail to give if there really was no collapse before the plane came to a stop. It reads as though it was based on interviews with at least one of Pearson and Quintal, and at least one of the RCMP officers, though there are no footnotes or anything to specify the writers' sources. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe it -- unless I'm shown better evidence to the contrary. (An official report on the incident would do; I haven't read that.) -- Mark Brader "Thus the metric system did not really catch on in the msb@sq.com States, unless you count the increasing popularity SoftQuad Inc., Toronto of the 9 mm bullet." -- Dave Barry My text in this article is in the public domain. From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:33 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry In article Niels Sampath (niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk) wrote: > In article > Chuanga@cris.com "H Andrew Chuang" writes: > > -snip- > >Personally, I don't think Airbus should > >stick with the A300/310/330/340 fuselage cross-section for the A340-600X > >(or any long-range aircraft). Do remember, the original A300 was a > >short-haul aircraft! Cabin comfort requirement for a short-haul flight > >is quite different from a long-haul flight. > > I am not sure what you are suggesting. I assume a wider cross-section? > A wider cabin but still twin-aisle config., only means more poor saps > stuck `in the middle of the middle'.... an absolute nightmare for those > concerned. Airbus already markets their `fewer centre seats' as > an `advantage' over the 777. > I do agree that nine abrest and ten abreast are less ideal than eight abreast when the flight is *full*. Airlines do hope every flight is full, but most airlines can realistically fill their planes 60-70% full, annually. Thus, for most flights, the dreadful middle seat of the 2-5-2 configuration is not an issue. According to Boeing, the standard economy seat on the B747 and B777 is 1.5 inches wider than than the standard economy seat on the A300/310/330/340. Nevertheless, comfort is a very subjective thing. Also, some people will believe what they are told to believe. From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:33 From: Arnold Tang Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Speaking of "good year" I might also reflect on the fact that there were no fatality incidents associated with the B777, despite what the naysayers (and novelists) 'predicted'. From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:33 From: s_odle@earthlink.net Subject: Re: "Airframe" and DFDR's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. On 01 Jan 97 20:59:22 , libove@*compgen.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) wrote: >Michael Crighton's new book "Airframe" (a fictional novel about a >fictional airframer investigating the cause of severe porpoising in >a fictional widebody) claims that an extremely high (~80) percentage >of Digital Flight Data Recorders in modern aircraft are partially or >fully non-functional. > >Does anyone have any information to refute/prove this? It seems >extremely unlikely. Its just what it appears, fiction. From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:33 From: Joseph Edward Nemec Subject: Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > > > >There may be more A320's built than Comets, but the A320 may still have > > >a worse accident record, which at one time was the worst since the > > >beginning of the jet age. > > Hey, you could say that the 757 has had an extremely bad record too. If > you count 1996, the 757 would look very bad compared to the 320 or most > other planes. Except for the fact that in every case, the cause of the accidents of the 757s were decidedly not the airplane, but external factors. This is not the case with the A320. -- Joseph Edward Nemec nemecj@mit.edu http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/ From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:34 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Air Safety (was Re: A3xx vs B747-600) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist (falke@pweh.com) wrote: > The A330 flight was in an uncertified airplane, intentionally > inducing fault conditions multiple times during the flight. > The persons on board were at least engineers or pilots. > Probably neither should count. Technically, the A330 with the PW4168 engine was indeed uncertified at the time. However, the A330 with the CF6-80E1 engine was certified a year earlier. Since the crash was unrelated to the PW4168 engine, then I can't see why this one should not count unless the certification of the A330/CF6 was flawed. From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:34 From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Air Safety (was Re: A3xx vs B747-600) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > It's not clear to me that Tournoux and Hulse were engineers or > pilots. Neither they nor the two Alitalia pilots had any business > aboard a test flight -- they were merely observers, or passengers. > Simply holding a pilot's license does not, IMO, make one part of > the flight crew. This is quite true, but my point was not that they were crew, or necessary to the conduct of the test flight. I agree that they weren't part of the crew or necessary to perform the test flight. My point was that they were in a position to know that engineering test flying has a higher risk than revenue passenger flying. -- Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney System Test Team Leader C/O Boeing Comm AP grp. From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:34 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca re: Boeing sticking to conventional controls instead of puttting in its 777 style FBW. Aren't there considerable weight savings in going to electronic controls especially in terms of wiring which can be reduced significantly with the use of a communication bus instead of wires to each components from the cockpit ? How much of the 767-400 built today would really be "conventional" with a conventional cockpit of a 767 built in early 80s ? How different would the 767-400's "conventional" cockpit be compared to a 777-style cockpit installed in a 767-400 ? (in terms of training and pilot commonality). What I am really asking: if Boeing chooses a conventional cockpit, will the training to cross-certify pilots really be less than if the 767-400's cockpit adopts the 777-style cockpit ? Would the savings in training be offset by higher operating costs due to the heavier plane ? From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:34 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Aren't there considerable weight savings in going to electronic controls >especially in terms of wiring which can be reduced significantly with >the use of a communication bus instead of wires to each components from >the cockpit ? That was an early claim for FBW, but in practice the difference seems to have been negligible. >How much of the 767-400 built today would really be "conventional" with >a conventional cockpit of a 767 built in early 80s ? You seem to be confusing two different things -- the controls the pilots interact with in the cockpit, and how those controls connect to the flight control surfaces. A very modern looking glass cockpit can still have mechanical connections to the control surfaces. The 747-400 is an example. An old "dials and guages" type cockpit can use FBW to activate the control surfaces. Except for the side-stick, Concorde is a good example. Ignoring the first few 767s which were built with a flight engineer's panel (which was subsequently ripped out before certification -- see the archives for details), the cockpit of a 1996 vintage 767 is pretty much the same as the first one delivered to United in 1982. There are probably some new bells and whistles, but the core flight controls aren't substantially different. The connections to the control surfaces and whatnot are even less changed, with the exception of the engines -- all new 767s have FADEC- equipped engines, so engine controls are now electrical. >What I am really asking: if Boeing chooses a conventional cockpit, will >the training to cross-certify pilots really be less than if the >767-400's cockpit adopts the 777-style cockpit ? If the 767-400 ends up with the same cockpit as the earlier 767, the additional training would not be substantially more than that required for a pilot to fly both the 767-200 and -300, which isn't a whole lot. Airlines that have both the 757 and 767, which were designed to have very similar cockpits, generally certify pilots for both models. If the 767-400 gets a 777-derived cockpit, it would almost certainly require a completely different rating than other 767s, just as the 747-400 requires a different rating than "rope-start" 747 models. It might well be easier to certify pilots for the 767-400 and 777 in that case -- and not the 767-400 and older 767s. >Would the savings in training be offset by higher operating costs due to >the heavier plane ? Weight would be a function of FBW vs. cables, pulleys, and hydraulics, which as noted above is probably not significant. Training costs in this context are mainly a function of the cockpit design. It's very unlikely Boeing would try to convert the 767-400 to FBW, so even it were to get an updated cockpit, it wouldn't gain any theoretical weight advantage. -- 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 Jan 3 04:36:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:34 From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP In article , Helen Trillian Rose wrote: >KLS> == Karl Swartz > > >> If Boeing is to produce a new version of the 767, would it retain the > >> conventional 767 controls or migrate to the 777 style of controls ? > > KLS> I'd be very surprised if it did not retain the controls of the > KLS> 767-300 more or less intact. > >Never mind that, but I imagine that cockpit commonality with DL's existing >757/767-200/767-300 fleet is a BIG selling point. > >Seat-wise, the 767-400 would be a perfect fit for DL. The Tristar >replacement they've always wanted..... It also seems to me that the A330-200 (which the 767-400ERX appears to be a response to) is more a competitor to the 767-300ER than to the 777. That is, it is aimed at medium to long haul routes for which airlines either want better than daily frequency (ie many transatlantic routes) or for which demand isn't big enough for a 777/A330-300/747/etc. A lot of potential customers are presently flying 767-300s on these routes and could perhaps do with something a little bigger as demand grows. If so, cockpit commonality with the 767-300 would surely be some sort of an advantage. (I'm an Australian, and one of my immediate thoughts is that Qantas would find a few of these to be really useful). Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk "`I need every aluminum can you can find! And duct tape!" From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:34 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 767-400ERX (Was `Delta A340 order?') References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , jfmezei wrote: >Niels Sampath wrote: >> Today's (Dec18th) `Flight Int'l' magazine has a decent little article on >> Boeing's efforts to get Delta to launch the 767-400. These efforts >> indicate that the 6m stretched 767 proposal is targeted at the >> A330-200 (which lends credence to the A330-200 size/range class). >> It also means that if Boeing is doing this Delta is not interested in >> any A340 or 777 order after all(?). > >Out of curiosity, are these just speculations from that magazine, of >report from leaks by "an informed source", or based on an official >Boeing statement ? > >If an official Boeing statement, is this designed as a strategy against >Airbus, or reporting actual true blue reality ? > >I tend to disbeleive that such statements would be "official" since >companies involved in negotiations would not really wish to report what >is REALLY happening. I have noticed that Flight International tends to report a lot more order speculations than its US counter-part, AvWeek. However, most of FI's "speculations" have turned out to be true. Some recent ones that I can think of include: 1. Air France's B777 order (nonetheless, FI reported that AF was interested in the B777-300 instead of the B777-200IGW) 2. Sabena's A330-200 order Anyway, I believe Boeing has officially released something on the B767-400ERX, I don't think that's a big secret. Courting Delta is an obvious move. It's interesting that you questioned this report of Delta's potential interest in the B767-400ERX, but I don't remember you doubting reports of Delta's interest in the A330/340. The simple fact is Airbus has had a good year with the A330-200. It makes sense for Boeing to launch the B767-400ERX ASAP. Another fact is Delta need an L-1011 replacement soon. The B767-400ERX certainly makes sense (so does the A330-200, but less so because Delta already owns a big fleet of B767-200/300). I don't think it's a sin to speculate, especially a reasonable speculation. BTW, my educated guess is if Delta does go with the B767-400ERX the order will be supplemented with some B777s for trans-Pacific services, just like AA's Boeing order. If Delta chooses the A330 (most likely the -200), then it will be supplemented with some A340s. From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:34 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: Counterfeit parts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 08:59 PM 1/1/97, you wrote: >Public concern about counterfeit parts is being whipped up by the media on >a regular basis. >In the opinion of the Group is this a worthy concern? Has there ever been >a fatality on a commercial airliner attributable to counterfeit parts? >Santa Claus brought me the thriller novel "Airframe", and there is a >subplot about, you guessed it... It is a legitimate concern. The only thing though that comes to mind was turbine wheels and I can't remember exactly how that problem came about. Maybe someone else has specifics? Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-9455/4815 From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:34 From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Brian Maddison) Subject: Re: Counterfeit parts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article lestroyens@aol.com (LesTroyens) writes: >Public concern about counterfeit parts is being whipped up by the media on >a regular basis. >In the opinion of the Group is this a worthy concern? Has there ever been >a fatality on a commercial airliner attributable to counterfeit parts? Yes. A Convair 580 of Norwegian airline Partnair disintegrated after a bogus bolt sheared causing the vertical tail to depart the airplane. All on board perished. As this did not happen in the U.S., it was not widely reported. Brian M From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:34 From: s_odle@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Counterfeit parts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. On 01 Jan 97 20:59:22 , lestroyens@aol.com (LesTroyens) wrote: >Public concern about counterfeit parts is being whipped up by the media on >a regular basis. >In the opinion of the Group is this a worthy concern? Has there ever been >a fatality on a commercial airliner attributable to counterfeit parts? >Santa Claus brought me the thriller novel "Airframe", and there is a >subplot about, you guessed it... To date. as far I we have been told at the ACO, not a single fatality has been attributed to counterfeit parts From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:35 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >There was one group of routes where the article claimed the -400F does >have a measureable advantage. I don't recall where that was, but a >good guess would be routes like SIN-LAX. At 7,620 nm non-stop, a >-200F needs two stops. (It could do the job with one close to the >midpoint, but there aren't any conveniently located airports and that >would require a substantial payload penalty.) In contrast, a high >MGTOW -400F can in theory make the trip with only one stop without a >dramatic payload penalty. (I'm not sure what would be a reasonable >place to stop, though.) My understanding is all the current B747-400F operators went for the extra payload instead of the extra range. For example, Singapore Airlines' B747-400F service between SIN-LAX (as well as to other US cities) does make two stops (TPE/SEL and ANC). IIRC, SQ has fifth-freedom rights between TPE/SEL and the US only on selected flights. From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:35 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Cost of Unscheduled Stop? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net Ken A. Nishimura wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, what is the cost (fuel,time,wear/tear on A/C, > and of course in $$) for an unscheduled stop for refueling? > > For example, on a non-stop from SFO-NRT, if they have to stop in > Anchorage due to headwinds? Figure a round $10,000/hour wet for a B747. Add a cycle to the cycle-limited components, add time for deviation off enroute track, approach, taxi in/out, departure, enroute deviation back on track, or at least 1:00, even for easy in-easy out ANC. So, it's clearly more than $10,000 in time and cycles, plus say $1500 landing fee, plus the fuel top-up at several cents/gal higher (times X,000 gal uplift) than homebase prices, plus the caterer will probably be called ($300 and up) to hit the plane for ice/beverages, plus if you use a gate (as opposed to remote fueling), add that in, too. $13,000 wouldn't be too conservative, or $30/seat, $40/pax. Do it alot and there go your margins. -- - Bob Mann R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. 516/944-0900 e-mail: rwmannco@interport.net http://www.interport.net/~rwmannco From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:35 From: pmacdou367@aol.com (PMacdou367) Subject: propellor design Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Can anyone explain the design differences between the Hamilton Satndard propellors used on the C130 Hercules and the P-3 Orion which use faily similar engines (T56-A-14/-15)? ie the P-3 uses rounded prop tips and the C130 uses square prop tips, what are the reasons? Thanks Paul From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:35 From: pmacdou367@aol.com (PMacdou367) Subject: aircraft performance in descent Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Could anyone with a background in aircraft performance please give me a good explanation of this "fact". 2 identical planes are at FL350, however 1 weighs 200k and the other 300k. IF they both conduct a flight idle, same IAS, descent, the heavier airplane will have a lower rate of descent, contrary to what one's intuition would tell them. Therefore if you are plannning a descent then a heavier airplane must start a descent earlier because of the lower rate. I have some performance manuals that suggest the above is corrrect, can anyone explaint the aerodynamics? I suspect it has to do with angle of attack but I'm out of my depth there. Paul From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:35 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca graemec@ibm.net wrote: > In general, I fail to understand the heat generated by this debate. My > Econ 101 said that subsidies/tariffs/etc were bad because of the cost to > the *host* economy Subsidies are bad when they sustain an industry which is endemically inefficient. They cost the nation money, and have no long term benefit since the industry will always be inefficient. Look at industries in the former East Block. Good example of the above. Air France might also be a good example, and now, they were told to shape up or die, they are trying to get fit ASAP before their subsidies run out. However, this contrasts sharply with a government investment in a startup industry which need a lot of cash to get going and shows long term promise of jobs and sustainability. (note: long term really means long term outside of North America). Aerospace industries get "subsidies" in one form or the other all over the world. If Airbus gets "more" subsides than the other guys, one must ask the question: "Can Airbus survive on only the "world average" amount of subsidies, and if so, how many years will it take for Airbus to grow/adapt to this". It is somewhat unfair to expect Airbus to have no government help whatsoever, and still let other manufacturers get benefits from government spending. From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:35 From: jac@panix.com (John Clear) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Panix In article , jfmezei wrote: >John Clear wrote: >> I think some small grants/subsidies/etc to promote development >> is very different then huge sums of money to fund entire product >> development, start to finish. > >But when you look at the industry over a longer preiod of time, you >*may* see many "acceptable" small grants that total up to a huge sum of >money which would have been unacceptable to many had it been handed over >in a single check. As usual, you dont see the differances in scale. A $3.5billion subsidy for the A330/A340 development (mentioned in an earlier post in this thread), plus whatever amounts they received earlier, is ALOT more then a couple of $100mil grants. >And even if ther were no directs benefits to commercial operation, any >military/space contract will make the company bigger and may offer >economies of scale and better negotiation with dealers. Hard to quantify >such help, of course. As usual, you conviently forget that all the Airbus partners have some degree of military/space/other civilian contracts, so saying only US companies have that benefit is just plain not true. John -- John Clear - jac@panix.com PP-ASEL 1Lt, CAP-CAWG http://www.panix.com/~jac "They're all lawyers, and think that the laws of physics can be amended with a voice vote." -- Mary Shafer (shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com) on Politicians From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:35 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana graemec@ibm.net writes: >>...It is worth noting that this support is *not* for commercial aircraft >>since this engine is designed for planes with <6 seats. >I always thought that a commercial aircraft manufacturer was one that >made aeroplanes for profit and a non-commercial manufacturer was one >that went broke or was subsidised by the government. Did Cessna stop Commercial aircraft as opposed to general aircraft. *not* as in a profitable manufacturer. >>It is certainly a subsidy ... >Yes, it is - and all the rest is excuses. Excuses for *what*? >With only tiny variations, you sound just like an Airbus executive of >10-15 years ago. As Alexander said above, *nobody* is against subsidies, >as Terry's contribution proves. It's just the hypocrisy which can become a >little irritating. I have not seen anyone bash airbus for the subsidies... just people trying to point out that they occured and other people claiming they did not. BTW, Airbus executives were not arguing that they needed subsidies to make up for impending environmental laws or to offset the failure to pass meaningful tort reform. Nor were they asking for a grant to investigate the viability of a product that is not currently in production anywhere in the world. Nor were they asking for a one-time grant worth a few million dollars. Nor were they competing with a variety of other companies for the grant. I don't see how you can say that the justification of this subsidy sounds much like the justification of Airbus at all. It is extremely economically unsophisticated to state that all subsidies are the same. >In general, I fail to understand the heat generated by this debate. My >Econ 101 said that subsidies/tariffs/etc were bad because of the cost to >the *host* economy (not foreigners) in misallocated resources and higher >costs to other sectors of the host economy due to increased taxes and >charges. To use the current jargon, attempts to tilt the playing field will >only hurt those who do the tilting. Your Econ 101 was fairly simplistic (almost by design). In reality there are times when subsidies make economic sense (viewed either as improvment for a country or worldwide improvement) depending on the type of subsidies, the amount involved, the particular market dynamics of the products/services involved, the general state of the economy, the types of government social services, current interest rates, etc. I have not studies the history of Airbus to fully understand if the subsidies were given for purely political reasons rather than for sound economic reasons. My guess is that both factors played a role. Sincerely, Terry From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:36 From: ADent1@aol.com (Arthur Dent) Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: None In article , gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) wrote: > In article , davidl@wr.com.au wrote: > > 2. Does the fuel vaporise before reaching the ground ? > > In those cases where an aircraft didn't make it to Lake Michigan we never > recieved a report of fuel hitting the ground. Usually, but every once in a while it does not evaporate. (Usually when the A/C is low). I remember something about houses hit with mist when an A/C lost an engine on takeoff. -- 'Arthur Dent' (Don't Panic, it's a pseudonym) ADent1@aol.com From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:36 From: jveen@tincan.tincan.org (John van Veen) Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Inland Northwest Community Access Network I was on a 727 that dumped fuel some time back. It was New Years Eve, 1966 to exact. The reason given was that the antiskid device on the brakes had failed and the flight deck wanted the plane as light as possible when we landed. It took a while. It was the fourth plane I was on that day and the fourth one with mechanical problems. I never fly New Years Eve anymore. John From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:36 From: "Erico Oller Westerberg" Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Appelberg Regarding articles about fuel dumping and just out of curiosity: Is fuel dumping a dangerous operation in itself (not counting the emergency that makes fuel dumping necessary)? Any increased fire or explosion risk? Erico Oller Westerberg Stockholm Sweden From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:37 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Gimli 767 nose gear (was: Emergency landing on water ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) wrote: > - Page 196: On the panel in front of Quintal, two green lights > indicated that both main landing gear were down and locked. > But another glowed amber, warning that the nose gear was > partially down but not locked. Quintal immediately knew why... > the nose gear had to push forward, against the wind... The author apparently was not aware that the nosewheels of the 757,767,and 777 retract FORWARD, not backward, and are designed this way in part so that the slipstream will help extend and lock the gear in the case of a hydraulic failure. > > - Page 213: Two tires blew in the right main landing gear. > Careening forward at 170 knots, far faster than normal, now he > had to stop the craft before it slammed into something. > Pearson jammed the balls of his feet high up on the rudder > pedals and pushed with his final reserve of strength to activate > the brakes. The nose dropped. He anticipated the familiar thump > of the forward gear touching down. Instead he heard what sounded > like the explosive bang! of a 12-gauge shotgun fired at close range. > The right engine nacelle scraped the ground. They were now sliding > down the runway on their nose and an engine pod amid a cascade of > sparks. As I was not there, I cannot comment with absolute certainty on the accuracy of the book's description. But if the nosewheel did collapse on landing ( and I do know that the flight crew did not recieve the gear down and locked lights on the flight deck) how does one explain the photographs we have at Boeing that show the nose resting on top of the race car barrier after it came to a stop? If the nose had been on the ground, it would have slid into the barrier with some damage at least to the lower half of the radome. Instead, all our photos clearly show it resting on top of the barrier, which is consistent with the story here that the nosewheel was knocked back slightly when the plane hit the barrier at the very end of its landing roll. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:37 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) Subject: Re: Caravelle of Air Provence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr "Marc SCHAEFFER" wrote: >This summer I made a picture of an Air Provence (APR / DG) >Caravelle in LUX. One of my friends told me that this was >the last Caravelle in service here in Europe. no >- How many and what planes does Air Provence have ? two, F-GCVL, F- GCVM. the first one is owned by Air toulouse. I think Air toulouse retook it. Air provence uses one >- Where did they get the Caravelle from ? AIR INTER / AIR FRANCE >- Is this really the last Caravelle in service in Europe ? Air toulouse owned 3 more. One was given to an association. 2 other are stored in toulouse. >- How many Caravelle's are still worldwide in service ? about 20 in south america and africa. >- Which company is the largest Caravelle user ? Air toulouse From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:37 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Caravelle of Air Provence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics To my knowledge, the two Caravelle 12's flown by Air Provence (F-GCVL and GCVM) are the last ones in regular service anywhere in the world. There may still be a few in Colombia, but I'm not positive. The two aircraft flown by Air Provence were obtained from Finnair (formerly OY-SAE and -SAA respectively). Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:37 From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Caravelle of Air Provence Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > - Is this really the last Caravelle in service in Europe ? When I was last in Toulouse, in May of 96, there were still some ex-Air Inter Caravelle Super 12s being operated by an "Air Toulouse." Very pretty livery, all white with an all red fin, with the regional Haute-Midi cross in gold over the red. Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney System Test Team Leader C/O Boeing Comm AP grp. From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:37 From: bill@markov.math.mcgill.ca (bill anderson) Subject: airline and airport safety statistics--do they exist?? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McGill University Computing Centre I've noticed over the years that there are never any newspaper or magazine articles comparing safety records of airlines or airports. I've never even seen any reference to this in Consumer Reports magazine. I did a check in my university library and came up with nothing. The headquarters of ICAO is across the street from McGill University here in Montreal. Being a statistics professor, I always thought that one day I'd stroll over and get some interesting data that I could use in classes. After all, this is information that affects all of us and one would assume it to be in the public domain. I ran into an employee of ICAO at a party once (from one of the member countries), and he told me that would be impossible, that this data is secret. So I've never actually tried at ICAO. But I'm very curious. And I would think others would also be. Can it actually be that it is impossible to acquire this type of information? Can anyone help me out on this? Bill Anderson From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:38 From: Chris Nolan Subject: Whatever happened to the Dash 7 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UBS Does anyone know what has ever happend to the production run of the DeHaviland Dash 7. Was the Dash 8 the replacement aircraft, and if so can it mimic the Dash 7's noted short T/O and landing capabilities? From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:38 From: showie@uoguelph.ca.foo (Steve Howie) Subject: Re: Unusual/Airbus TV Ad? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Guelph On 28 Dec 96 14:20:12 , Ben wrote: >Brian Wiklem wrote: >... >>I have never seen ads on TV for aircraft by an aircraft company, >>and was wondering if: > >>1. Anyone else has seen these? > >I saw it in france. Airbus make ads in pacific area too to promote >A340/A330 You can get a glimpse of the Airbus "vanishing middle seat" advert by visiting their WWW site http://www.airbus.com. They have a Quick-Time movie of the "ejection". Quite funny to watch. Scotty -- Steve Howie | **Remove the .foo when replying** NetNews and Listserv Admin. | (519) 824-4120 x2556 University of Guelph | showie@uoguelph.ca From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:38 From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: L1011 vs. DC-10 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com It occurred to me recently that while L1011's are starting to fall to the scrap-man's torch fairly often these days, DC-10's (same generation, approx. same size) are soldiering on as long-haul passenger aircraft throughout the world, and in fact some are even being overhauled to start new lives as freighters. Is there a good reason for this? - plain old economics or did the DC-10 airframe have a lot more "life" designed into it? Steve From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:38 From: "Marc SCHAEFFER" Subject: B737 of Luxair (LG) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM - Who can tell me which company flies the B737-200 which Luxair operated still in the early 90's ? - Are all B737 (4 B737-500 and 2 B737-400) which Luxair operates nowadays leased from Itochu ? Hope somebody can help me in finding the answers Marc // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) -- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Fri Jan 3 04:36:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Jan 97 04:36:38 From: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Subject: 737 with wire ant. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I saw a 737-200 in Cancun earlier today with an antennae wire running from the middle of the vertical stabiliser to the top of the fuselage. I don't recall seeing this type of installation on other 737s. I believe that it might have been an HF aerial, but I'll yield to the experts on this. The tail # was XA-SWL and the bird belonged to Magitours. John Gezelius Alexandria, VA From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:46 From: ghs@netcom.com (Gautam H. Shah) Subject: B727 "spin" accident? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) I'm trying to find some information on a 727 crash which purportedly involved a spin of the airplane. All I know is that it was in the 70's, it was a cargo plane, and possibly in the Catskill Mountains of New York. The NTSB web site doesn't have accident synopses available for pre-1983 incidents, and before I start wading through a mess of reports, I was hoping someone might know some more info to help me narrow down my search in any way (e.g., date, location, company, etc.). The lore as I heard it was that the pilot knew he was in an unusual and unrecoverable situation, and kept radioing the airplane's conditions, behavior, etc. all the way down, in the hopes it would help the investigators later on. The crew perished in the crash. Thanks for any input any of you might have. Gautam Shah ghs@netcom.com OR g.h.shah@larc.nasa.gov From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:46 From: Michael Carley Subject: Re: propellor design References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. pmacdou367@aol.com (PMacdou367) writes: >Can anyone explain the design differences between the Hamilton Satndard >propellors used on the C130 Hercules and the P-3 Orion which use faily >similar engines (T56-A-14/-15)? ie the P-3 uses rounded prop tips and the >C130 uses square prop tips, what are the reasons? It wouldn't be a ``robustness'' thing would it? The C-130 operates on fairly poor airstrips with a greater risk of the propeller being hit by assorted rubbish. A square-tip blade would be less likely to get damaged by such a strike. -- "You got your highbrow funk, you got your lowbrow funk, you even got a little bit of your pee-wee, pow-wow funk" (Dr. John) Michael Carley, Mech. Eng., TCD, IRELAND. m.carley@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie Home page From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:47 From: sasrbk@unx.sas.com (Bart Killam) Subject: Re: Help ID Piedmont Propeller Planes, Please References: <589hun$2ug@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SAS Institute Inc. In article , BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Brian Maddison) writes: |> Not so. PI had 8 F-27, 10 FH-227 and 21 YS-11. I will defer to Brian on this one. Back when I lived in Winston-Salem, 1964-1968, there seemed to be a lot more F-27's (and FH-227's). I could not tell the F-27 and FH-227 apart; what exactly was the difference between these aircraft ? On a related note, PI operated two 727's during the early 1970's while waiting for their 737's. One of these aircraft was involved in two accidents while at PI. The planes were regularly towed across Liberty St. in Winston-Salem from Smith Reynolds airport terminal to for maintainance. During one of these crossings, an intoxicated driver went through a set of lowered gates and went under the plane, causing some expensive damage, but no injuries. The second accident was much more tragic. A private (Cessna ?) twin crashed into the cockpit of the 727 soon after taking off the Asheville, NC airport. I don't think there was any survivors; someone might have more details on this accident, which I think was ruled an ATC error by the NTSB. -- Bart Killam Work: 919-677-8000 x7538 SAS Institute Inc. Fax: 919-677-8224 SAS Campus Dr., R5215 Email: sasrbk@unx.sas.com Cary NC 27513-8000 From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:47 From: "Leo Kok" Subject: Re: ET 767 Ditch References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Most famous I recall was a Eastern Ailrines(??) DC9 in the Carribean circa 1963 or so. Fuel starvation.. the classic ditching scenario. An RAF Nimrod went down 2 years ago in the North Sea. Classic failure when the tail portion cracked off. Crew survived by waitng on the wing till search and rescue came. Conditions were calm and clear. Emergency procedures were not followed the A/C did come down safely but most injuries to occupants were due to not being properly strapped in. Subsequently some that were knocked drowned. A number of people did perish. A/C remained afloat for some six minutes suggesting major damage to the A/C. depth of water was no more than 10-15 metres. GEAR UP on water landing just like in the video. If any of the gears would hit they would cause a nose over moment on the A/C causing opposite accelarations to those on the A/C. Increased risk to cracking the A/C's back and ripping it open. This is not desirable. One would want to keep the A/C intact during such an event. -- Leo J.J. Kok Structures R&D Engineer, de Havilland Inc. E-MAIL: lkok@dehavilland.ca From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:47 From: Carl Peters Subject: Re: Ethiopian 767 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc jfmezei wrote: > The amateur video shot from the beach does not show any of the plane's > fuselage breaking up. But the tail section seems attached to the fuselage > all the way to that moment where everything becomes obscured by water spray. > > I would appreciate any comments on what details to look for in the video > to detect that fuselage was broken etc etc. It is possible to see fuselage breakup in the video - indirectly. After the left engine contacts the water, the plane quickly yaws, the right wing rises, but look closely at the relationship of the tail/horizontal stabilizer to the right wing. The tail's relationship changes, with more twisting. This implies a fracturing somewhere inbetween the rear wing spar and the tail. The left engine can be seen shearing by drag forces upon contacting the water (they have pylon 'fuse' pins meant to shear under high stress, so an unbalanced engine can fall clean off, not breaking the main wing box or ripping hydraulics that typically run along the front spar in the leading edge,etc.). Looking closely, the engine appears as a brief shadow ripping back. Carl From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:47 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Ethiopian 767 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >Only one hitch here- without fuel, the crew would have been reduced to >basic 3-axis control (that's all the ram air turbine can do). The flaps >and slats could not be deployed. As for being level, that's not so easy >either- I recalled reading in Freefall (the book about the Gimli Glider) >that the controls are much harder to use when powered by the RAT than >under full power. Furthermore, some reports say that the pilots were >trying to fight off the hijackers as they were ditching the plane. Still >think they could have done a better job?? There is in fact (at least on QF planes anyway) hydraulic flap movement - but at a much reduced rate) with the RAT, but from the video it is obvious no t/e flap was used, I can't see the front of the wing clearly enough to say anything about the leading edges. As for how the pilot rates, I think he did a stirling job in very difficult circumstances. Remember that saying, "any landing you can walk away from is a good landing." Regards, -- Simon Craig --- If it's not Boeing, then I'm not going! From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:47 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Ethiopian 767 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >> I'm not really sure why he wasn't using any flaps. I can cleary see the >> RAT deployed in the video, > >Can you tell me where I can see the RAT on the video ? I have looked >for it but couldn't find it. In the qt video from CNN, I cannot see it conclusively, but when I watched someone's copy of the TV broadcast of the same video, I could see it clearly. You can see the door that is normally faired with the fuselage immediately behind the trailing edge of the right wing where it mates with the fuselage. It is a white square amongst the darker underside of the fuse. >>From watching the video, it seems that the Plane actually landed pretty >smoothy and intact, but because of increased drag on the left side >(which entered before) and no drag from right wing and engine still in >the air, the fuselage began to spin/turn and only when it got to about >90 degrees against direction did the breakup supposedly occured. > >The amateur video shot from the beach does not show any of the plane's >fuselage breaking up. You see some debris flying as the left engine >enters the water, and some debris as the right wing becomes vertical. >But the tail section seems attached to the fuselage all the way to that >moment where everything becomes obscured by water spray. It does not show physically seperate parts of the fuselage, but you can see the rudder and stabiliser move violently out of proportion with the right wing just before the tail is obscured by water. This is either the tail breaking away, or the central wing box section breaking away, as can be seen in the static shots of the wing upside down (with the rate sitting up in the breeze). >Finally, does anyone know if the right engine stayed attached to the >right wing throughout the landing, or did it finally fall off ? Ha! Which bit of the right wing :-) Regards, -- Simon Craig --- If it's not Boeing, then I'm not going! From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:47 From: erisajd@neca.com (Joseph D. Farrell) Subject: Re: Are Two Engine 757 & 767 Jets Dangerous? [Was the DC-3???] References: <57b3ge$chm@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com> <329D55A0.5E2E@nl.compuware.com> <57n7gf$pnd@herald.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Benefits Litigation Concepts Reply-To: erisajd@neca.com Stop all this ETOPs silliness. Well, was the DC3 dangerous? Is a gun dangerous in the hands of an assasin? Is the Koran dangerous in the hands of a Sh'ite? Are the hands of a black belt dangerous? Is air dangerous? Remember, falling out of the sky does not kill, its' the stopping that kills. Joe From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:47 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Are Two Engine 757 & 767 Jets Dangerous? [Was the DC-3???] References: <57b3ge$chm@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com> <329D55A0.5E2E@nl.compuware.com> <57n7gf$pnd@herald.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Stop all this ETOPs silliness. >Well, was the DC3 dangerous? The Super DC-3's range was 1,900 nm, only slightly short of enough to fly SFO-HNL (2,084 nm). Given its 218 kts cruise speed, it would be well over four hours away from land at mid-point. Even assuming it had the range, would you claim such a flight would not be dangerous? Keep in mind the first case of a large airliner ditching involved a Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, which had two engines fail near midpoint of an LAX-HNL flight. It's PW R-4360 Wasp radials were advanced (and perhaps overstressed) versions of the R-1830 Wasps used on the DC-3. (DC-3s also used Wright GR-1820 Cyclones.) Yes, in that environment, a DC-3 would have been very dangerous. A modern jet, regardless of how many engines it has, is dangerous in such an environment, too, though far less so than a DC-3. -- 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 Jan 4 03:55:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:48 From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Re: bypass ratios and engine efficiency References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , "P. Wezeman" writes: > It is true that high bypass engines are more efficient at low speeds >and low bypass engines are more efficient at high speeds. The new F-22 >fighter will have low bypass P&W F119 turbofans optimized for cruising at >supersonic speed (mach 1.5?), and the Concorde's straight turbojets give >very good propulsive efficiency at mach 2.2. However, the bypass ratio of >any of the present high bypass engines is still too low to give optimum >efficiency at the cruise speeds of subsonic airliners. To do so would >require even larger ratios with bigger, heavier fans, less ground clearance, >more chance of hoovering up foreign objects, perhaps require a reduction >gear to drive the fan, and other complications that people would rather >not deal with as long as fuel is cheap. Do we want to continue this debate on the Concorde thread or the 757/767 thread?? (Over to you Karl!) [Moderator's note: I vote for door #3 -- a new thread. KLS] When we talk about engine efficiency we need to be fairly precise as to what we mean? Cycle efficiency, propulsive efficiency or overall efficiency, Cycle efficiency is related to the internal cycle of the engine and is improved by high pressure ratios and high component efficiencies. Propulsive efficiency is related to the speed of the aircraft and the speed of the exhaust and is what most people focus on. Propulsive efficiency is given by the ratio of work done in propelling the aircraft to the energy injected into the airstream and can be reduced to the formula (2xV0)/(VJ+VO). In order to get maximum efficiency out of an engine you therefore need to make VJ=VO, which of course is quite useless as this gives you an engine with zero thrust. Conclusion : you aren't looking for the most efficient engine. What you are in fact looking for is the most efficient transportation system. Simplistically this may considered to be the smallest aircraft to transport the payload over the prescribed range. The shorter the range and the more demanding the field performance (e.g. regional jets) the less significant fuel efficiency becomes relative to engine weight and smaller bypass ratios will tend to be optimum. With respect to Concorde (other thread!) they would have needed a turbojet to get adequate thrust at Mach 2 out of an engine with acceptable weight and size. I guess however with todays technology that running to hotter temperatures and with modern lighter materials that the optimum cycle would in fact be a low bypass ratio turbofan. Gerald Wilson From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:48 From: "David K. Cornutt" Subject: Re: Are Two Engine 757 & 767 Jets Dangerous? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Residential Engineering This has been a very interesting discussion, but I'm wondering if it isn't focusing on the wrong things. If I recall correctly an article that I read in AW about two years ago, there is *no* case on record of a scheduled airliner (jet-equipped) ever suffering two independent engine failures on one flight. Therefore, it seems to me that crashes stemming from engine failures can be divided into two categories: multiple failures with a common cause, and a single uncontained failure that makes the plane unflyable. Examples: Of the first category, two come to mind. In 1985 (I think) there was an Eastern L1011 that took off from Miami with all three engines leaking oil (a ramp technician who removed oil plugs from the engines, in order to check the oil levels, failed to notice that the replacement plugs that he installed lacked O-rings to seal them). And in 1976, there was a Southern Airlines 727 that flew through a thunderstorm and had all three engines extinguished by water ingestion. In the second category, there's the DC-10 in Iowa that lost all of its hydraulics after an uncontained engine failure, and the recent El Al 747 could be added to this list. Clearly, in neither of these cases does having more engines turning make any positive difference. (In fact, in the second case, it might be argued that twins have a very slight advantage over three- and four-engined aircraft.) It appears to me that much more progress could be made by trying to improve redundancy among systems that support engine operation, and improving containment of engine failures. Trying to further mitigate the already-improbable case of multiple independent engine failures doesn't look like a winning strategy. Comments? --- David K. Cornutt, Residentially Engineered, Huntsville, AL email: cornutt@hiwaay.net I'm a rocket scientist. I know the difference between an increase and a decrease. From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:48 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Are Two Engine 757 & 767 Jets Dangerous? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >In 1985 (I think) there was an Eastern L1011 that took off from Miami >with all three engines leaking oil ... May 5, 1983 - N334EA (L-1011-385-1) operating EA 855 MIA-NAS. >And in 1976, there was a Southern Airlines 727 that flew through a >thunderstorm and had all three engines extinguished by water ingestion. Apr 4, 1977 - N1335U (DC-9-31; Southern never had any 727s); flight 242; crashed while attempting to land on a highway at New Hope, Georgia. >In the second category, there's the DC-10 in Iowa that lost >all of its hydraulics after an uncontained engine failure, and >the recent El Al 747 could be added to this list. Jul 19, 1989 - N1819U (DC-10-10); UA 232 DEN-ORD at Sioux City, Iowa Oct 4, 1992 - 4X-AXG (747-258F) at Amsterdam -- 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 Jan 4 03:55:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:48 From: "Mark E. Ingram" Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 3 Jan 1997, Karl Swartz wrote: > Ignoring the first few 767s which were built with a flight engineer's > panel (which was subsequently ripped out before certification -- see > the archives for details).... I have flown on either an Ansett or an Australian Airlines 767 (I forget which - it was in 1987) that had both an engineer's panel (albeit truncated) *and* a living, breathing flight engineer. What gives? Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:48 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Ignoring the first few 767s which were built with a flight engineer's >> panel (which was subsequently ripped out before certification -- see >> the archives for details).... >I have flown on either an Ansett or an Australian Airlines 767 (I forget >which - it was in 1987) that had both an engineer's panel (albeit >truncated) *and* a living, breathing flight engineer. What gives? Ansett specially ordered their 767-200s with a flight engineer station. This was a different situation than the first 30 767s, which had the FE station because it wasn't clear they'd be able to certify it with only two pilots. The FAA certified the 767 with only two pilots and the early planes built with the extra position were converted to the now-standard configuration prior to delivery. I'm not sure if the Ansett version was the same as the pre-certification version or not. An article in this newsgroup in September, 1995, said Ansett was converting its 767s to the standard flight deck, according to Flight International. See http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archive-search.html and search for "767 and engineer" to see the previous threads on this subject. -- 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 Jan 4 03:55:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:48 From: "Brian A. Reynolds" Subject: Re: Counterfeit parts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins s_odle@earthlink.net wrote: > > On 01 Jan 97 20:59:22 , lestroyens@aol.com (LesTroyens) wrote: > > >Public concern about counterfeit parts is being whipped up by the media on > >a regular basis. > >In the opinion of the Group is this a worthy concern? Has there ever been > >a fatality on a commercial airliner attributable to counterfeit parts? > >Santa Claus brought me the thriller novel "Airframe", and there is a > >subplot about, you guessed it... > > To date. as far I we have been told at the ACO, not a single fatality > has been attributed to counterfeit parts New Zealand had (I think) two fatal helicopter crashes as a result of recycled US Army blades (which had been removed from service due to reaching their life limit). The blades had been improperly repaired (by definition a life limited part cannot be restored so any repair was improper but these repairs were really bad), then the blades repainted. A new version of FAR Part 21 is being circulated which will make all parties handling parts (currently the responsiblity is with the person/agency which does the actual installation, and no requirements for how the parts found their way into and through the spare parts pipeline). Counterfeit parts is a real and present danger which the FAA and other Regulatory Agencies are working to stop. Brian From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:48 From: "felix" Subject: adaptative wings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Grolier Interactive Europe who could give me some information about "adaptative wings", i.e wings or winglets which profile is capable of being continuously deformed? thanks in advance From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:49 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Unusual/Airbus TV Ad? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus Free-Net C. Marin Faure (faurecm@halcyon.com) wrote: : Airbus has launched a new advertising campaign that is aimed at the flying : public. They have done this in other countries when they are trying to : win a sale, particularly when the airline is government owned. I assume : they believe that public pressure might influence government officials to : "encourage" the airline officials to buy Airbus products. They may also hope to minimize the nationalistic type opposition by the public to U.S. purchases of foreign built aircraft. -- Gerry From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:49 From: matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. >Thus, for most flights, the dreadful middle seat of the 2-5-2 >configuration is not an issue. According to Boeing, the standard economy >seat on the B747 and B777 is 1.5 inches wider than than the standard >economy seat on the A300/310/330/340. Nevertheless, comfort is a very >subjective thing. Also, some people will believe what they are told to >believe. As someone who actually gets to travel in the passenger cabin upwards of 100,000 miles a year, let me put my two cents worth in here. The shape of the Airbus cabin is somewhat different than a Boeing widebody cabin, in that the Boeing Fuselage walls are essentially vertical, on Airbus aircraft they are canted inward, reducing shoulder room in the window seats. However seat pitch, and seat design are probably a greater factor in comfort than seat width. Admittedly the choice of seats is made by the airline, but I'd like to catch up with the guy who did the seats for Kuwait Airways in their Airbus widebodies. (and it isn't just the seats 'down the back' either). My experience is there is a huge difference between the 38-40 inch seat pitch used by many US carriers in business class, and the 50 inch now often seen outside the US. First class seat pitch ranges from about 55 inches to well over 6 feet in the current BA twin aisles, and even more on the Ansett Australia 'space ship' 747-300's. From my perspective, once the seat pitch is such that your feet cannot reach the seat in front of you, it no longer makes much difference. In other words I wouldn't pay a premium to get past about 55 inches. The middle seat down the back is awful not so much because of its width, but because the seat pitch is so limited. Given the choice between 2-5-2 seatings with say 34 inch pitch, and 2-4-2 seating with 31 inch pitch, I suspect most people would take the legroom over the seat width. The big complaint I have about the Airbus twin aisles is the cabin storage. Compared to a 747 (and-400's tend to be more spacious than -200/300's) or 777, A300/310 is very limited. In addition the bins on the 777 has been designed to be both cavernous, and designed not to dump on people who open them. I wish I could say the same for Airbus. You get more overhead storage on a Boeing, and it is better designed. The other observation is if you make the cabin service good enough, you can get away with a lot in the seats. I've been surprised at just how uncomfortable the seating was in Singapore Airlines 747-400 First class, and in A310's.(it wasn't so much a lack of space, as just not so great design of the seats). The 747 experience was about 3 years ago, I fly on SQ A310's several times a year. My opinions and experiences anyway. From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:49 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The shape of the Airbus cabin is somewhat different than a Boeing widebody >cabin, in that the Boeing Fuselage walls are essentially vertical, on >Airbus aircraft they are canted inward, reducing shoulder room in the >window seats. Except near the nose and tail, they're both horizontal cylinders with the bottom lopped off. (The overall fuselage may by a full cylinder or it may be two smashed together, with the floor at the joint, the so-called "double bubble" design. I think all Airbuses are cylinders but the 747 and 777 are the only Boeing jetliners in which the fuse- lage is a true cylinder.) The real difference is that Airbuses, or at least the wide-body ones, have the floor located higher within the fuselage. Where Boeing puts the widest part of the cabin at roughly shoulder level, Airbus puts it closer to waist level, which results in the more pronounced inward cant of the cabin walls at shoulder level. Airbus had a very good reason for locating the floor higher within the fuselage of the A300, and thus all other wide-body Airbus models -- by doing so, and using a wider fuselage than the 767, they were able to accomodate side-by-side LD-3 containers, like a DC-10 or L-1011. -- 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 Jan 4 03:55:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:49 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: A340-600X ??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services I was reading the year-end issue of AvWeek. Buried somewhere in the analysis of the Boeing-McDonnell merger, it was reported that the A340-600X (375 tri-class pax, 7,200 nm) has been put on hold indefinitely. IMHO, it's a sensible decision. In the past ten years or so, Boeing has received orders for 400 some B747-400s. I don't see any significant new customers on the horizon for this kind of aircraft, nor do I see any compelling reasons for any major B747-400 operators (other than Air France and Lufthansa ;-) ) to dump their relatively new -400s for the A340-600X. Moreover, the medium-range B777-300 is probably a more ideal B747-100/-200 replacement than the long-range A340-600X. The proposed A340-500X (310 tri-class pax, 8,500 nm) and -600X were going to share the same wing and the same engine. Does it mean Airbus will put the -500X on hold, too? One thing that does not quite make sense to me is why the A340 needs such a big boost in engine thrust (from 34,500 lb of thrust per engine for the A340-300E to the lastest engine proposal of 55-60,000 lb of thrust) to achieve 15% increase in range (plus a few more seats) for the A340-500X, or 25% increase in passenger seating for the A340-600X. Since the signing of an exclusive engine study for the A340-600X between Airbus and GE, GE has not made any firm commitment to go ahead with the 100K lb thrust GE90-100B. As a result, P&W is still the only engine manufacturer that offers an engine with more than 95K lb of thrust. P&W's commitment to the highest thrust engine has paid off. The availability of the PW4098 engine has played a significant role in both Korean Air's and Asiana's orders of the PW4000 family of engines for their A330s and B777s (and, up to now, Asiana's fleet is powered exclusively by GE/CFM engines). A few years back, many doubted the growth potential of the PW4000. The GE90 was supposed to dominate the high end of the B777 market. Ironically, GE has yet to sign up a customer to use the GE90 for the B777-300. I wonder if GE will now make a push for the GE90-100B since the A340-600X is put on hold. I have updated my A330/340 vs. B777 page. With the potential merger between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, I have decided against the idea of including the MD-11. The URL is Any corrections and comments are welcome. From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:49 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: 737 with wire ant. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 04:36 AM 1/3/97, you wrote: >I saw a 737-200 in Cancun earlier today with an antennae wire running from >the middle of the vertical stabiliser to the top of the fuselage. I don't >recall seeing this type of installation on other 737s. I believe that it >might have been an HF aerial, but I'll yield to the experts on this. The >tail # was XA-SWL and the bird belonged to Magitours. Suspect that HF is correct however it is usually strung from the fuselage to the wing in the temporary installations. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-9455/4815 From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:49 From: arch6@inlink.com (Arch McKinlay, VI) Subject: Re: safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McKinlay & Associates In article , gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) wrote: > Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@crl.com) wrote: > : In article , > : Andrew Weir <100637.616@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > : >It seems to me, [...] that if the accident rate is to continue to fall, > : >aviation regulators [...] may have to insist on all those myriad > : >recommendations made by investigators over the years that have not been > : >acted upon, e.g. rear-facing seats, full cargo hold fire detection, > : >smoke hoods, cabin and/or cargo hold fire suppression systems, > : >greater impact friendliness of the airframe, and much more efficient > : >incident reporting. > > : Most of the suggestions made above, though undoubtedly made by > : safety authorities, have more to do with *survivability* in the event > : of a crash than *crash prevention*. > > Promotion of survivability reminds passengers that accidents happen. > The more obtrusive the survival equipment, the less likely it is that > anyone will let it got aboard a commercial aircraft. Conversely, the suggestion all involve a weight penalty and liability in maintenance of the survival equipment. rear-facing seats: some trains and some camping vans have them. US Navy cargo planes use them off aircraft carriers fro obvious reasons (I watched a colorful off-the-cat ditch of a C-2 where it immediately flipped over, the rear doors blew open and the crew chief popped out within seconds and he began then yanking passengers out by their collars. They all got out with nary a neck injury.) I've loved them ever since. Only Southwest airlines 737 have rear facers nowadays. full-cargo hold fire detection: As long as each carrier has different containerized systems, or none at all, there will not be a standard fire sdetection system which can reliably detect all sorts of fires in all sorts of bays. Some are line-of-sight, some cannot be located in areas and detect all fumes due to blockage. Full coverage would require multiple systems, multiple attachments variable by load, and require strict loading methods and equipment. A basic question is also unanswered, what is the miniumum and time-to-detect? smoke hoods: Personal survival equipment is difficult to maintain, difficulkt for the average person to figure out, susceptible to maintenance problems and especially vandalism. All of which raises significant liability issues. fire suppression systems: Wait for halon replacement.... Same arguments as for fire detection systems above. impact-friendly airframes: FAA/CAA/ICAO etc. all have crash-worthiness requirements. Look at military systems and space systems. Aerospace is a unique play between weight and gravity. Higher impact survival means higher weight and less payload, if any. The Japanese Zero fighter of WW2 gained a large performance margin by not including armor and thus beat many US fighters in the beginning of the war. Then the Grumman Iron Works fighters and engine and aero improvements ate away at the p[erformance margin and the US armor allowed more mistakes than the Japanese armorless versions. For most accidents occurring in landing or takeoff, I recommend Sit over the wing box, you'll have less view, but there isn't a bigger chunk of material to strap your seat to....sit backwards if possible.... incident reporting: The military has the best system because there is one part in which the sanitized version is hangar-flown by others (discussed and analyzed for errors and really effective ways to avoid, or if necessary counteract, the event) and thus the same mistkaes avoided. Also the initial reporting is better because there is no/little reprisal and it is not releasable to the lovely lawyers at the door. Fix the organizational attitudes and the legal issue and you'll get a better system. From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:49 From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Air Safety (was Re: A3xx vs B747-600) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > I can't see why this one should not count unless the certification of > the A330/CF6 was flawed. It's typical that lots of airplane software opens up during cert with a new engine, but that wasn't my point. Statistics ought to be based on the types history when operated in a specific manner. I wouldn't want to count accidents when a type is operated as a freighter either, for example, because the rules are different. Experimental flying is simply much riskier than scheduled airline service. The "experimental" sticker by the door means what it says and is there for a reason. Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney System Test Team Leader C/O Boeing Comm AP grp. "One test result is worth Seattle, Wa. 98108 one thousand expert opinions" -- Wernher Von Braun From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:50 From: michael.f.lechnar@boeing.boeing.com Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams In article gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) writes: >In article , davidl@wr.com.au wrote: >> I had a number of questions concerning fuel dumping: ... >> >> 1. What are the regulations on when and where fuel can be dumped ? > >I thumbed through my copy of the FAR's and didn't see anything on fuel >dumping operationally speaking (there is of course a section in part 25 on >fuel jettison system requirements) ... The main reason that fuel jettison is used is to meet the FAR 25 requirements for approach climb and landing climb gradients. A side benefit to landing at a lower weight is less stress on the airframe. Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:50 From: d*c8ray@airmail.net* (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA On 27 Dec 96 04:41:01 , davidl@wr.com.au (David) wrote: >I had a number of questions concerning fuel dumping: > >1. What are the regulations on when and where fuel can be dumped ? >2. Does the fuel vaporise before reaching the ground ? >3. What would be a typical quantity of fuel that may be jettisoned ? Quantity depends on max landing weight of the aircraft. All aircraft that can dump have a minimum level they can dump to usually called "dumping to the standpipes", referring to the way the dump system pulls fuel out of the fuel tanks. Or its called "dumping to undumpable levels". Normally this level leaves about 1 hour worth of fuel on the aircraft. I fly an 4 engine jet. We don't normally talk about ( in the simulator) dumping to the standpipes unless we are already on 3 engines and lose the second engine. Then the flight engineer has standing orders to dump to the standpipes (more or less). The training game in the sim is quite complicated (though not as complicated as the loss of hydraulic pressure/quanity). Ray Clawson WARNING: The return email address field has been altered to foil bulk email spammers. If you reply to this message please remove the * from the return address or it'll bounce. From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:50 From: d*c8ray@airmail.net* (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: L1011 vs. DC-10 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA On 03 Jan 97 04:36:38 , astracon@aol.com (Astracon) wrote: >It occurred to me recently that while L1011's are starting to fall to the >scrap-man's torch fairly often these days, DC-10's (same generation, >approx. same size) are soldiering on as long-haul passenger aircraft >throughout the world, and in fact some are even being overhauled to start >new lives as freighters. > >Is there a good reason for this? - plain old economics or did the DC-10 >airframe have a lot more "life" designed into it? American International Airways, operates 5 or 6 L1011's in the cargo configuation. Rumor has it that Connie bought some DC10's now. Apparently, the 1011 just doesn't have the long carry that the 10 has. WARNING: The return email address field has been altered to foil bulk email spammers. If you reply to this message please remove the * from the return address or it'll bounce. From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:50 From: drela@athena.mit.edu (Mark Drela) Subject: Re: aircraft performance in descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology In article , pmacdou367@aol.com (PMacdou367) writes: |> Could anyone with a background in aircraft performance please give me a |> good explanation of this "fact". |> |> 2 identical planes are at FL350, however 1 weighs 200k and the other 300k. |> IF they both conduct a flight idle, same IAS, descent, the heavier |> airplane will have a lower rate of descent, contrary to what one's |> intuition would tell them. Therefore if you are plannning a descent then a |> heavier airplane must start a descent earlier because of the lower rate. In steady flight, the descent angle is the same as the Net_Drag/Lift ratio, where Net_Drag = Drag-Thrust. Assuming small angles this can be written as descent angle = sink_rate/TAS = (Drag - Thrust)/Weight For a given TAS and thrust setting, the sink rate will vary as 1/Weight. Note that this assumes that Drag is the same, which is only true if the profile drag dominates the induced drag sufficiently (i.e. if the descent is done at low CL, or high IAS for the current weight). For lower IAS descents, the sink rate of the heavier airplane may well be higher due to its higher induced drag. Mark Drela First Law of Aviation: MIT Aero & Astro "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory" From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:50 From: ifly Subject: Re: aircraft performance in descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indigo pmacdou367@aol.com (PMacdou367) wrote: >Could anyone with a background in aircraft performance please give me a >good explanation of this "fact". > >2 identical planes are at FL350, however 1 weighs 200k and the other 300k. >IF they both conduct a flight idle, same IAS, descent, the heavier >airplane will have a lower rate of descent, contrary to what one's >intuition would tell them. Therefore if you are plannning a descent then a >heavier airplane must start a descent earlier because of the lower rate. > >I have some performance manuals that suggest the above is corrrect, can >anyone explaint the aerodynamics? I suspect it has to do with angle of >attack but I'm out of my depth there. This is true if both of the airplanes are flying at or near the heavier airplane`s best LD speed in the descent, but the lighter airplane would glide (only slightly) better if both aircraft were flown at their respective best L/D speeds. It is partly to do with AoA, partly inertial. Most airliners descend at relatively high speeds, 300 kts or thereabouts until 10,000 feet, anyway, and these speeds favour a heavy airplane in regards a good L/D. At higher altitudes, this is further compounded by the effects of high mach numbers on the wing,which favors high speeds, but lower weights. Clear as mud, now!??? Jeff Morris From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:50 From: nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: Caravelle of Air Provence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) wrote: >>- How many Caravelle's are still worldwide in service ? >about 20 in south america and africa. Are there any Caravelle's anywhere in the WORLD on display in/at a museum? It'd be such a shame to see them die out completely without any memorial to them. Or better yet (and now I'm probably just dreaming), has anyone ever stated plans to restore one to flying condition as an operating museum? (Like the Constellation that's on the airshow circuit.) Neil - nw@ix.netcom.com From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:51 From: rparpatt@uniserve.com (Thundercraft) Subject: Re: Whatever happened to the Dash 7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UNIServe Online In article , nynol@ny.ubs.com says... > >Does anyone know what has ever happend to the production run of the >DeHaviland Dash 7. Was the Dash 8 the replacement aircraft, and if so can >it mimic the Dash 7's noted short T/O and landing capabilities? > The Dash 8 did indeed act as the replacement. The Dash 8-300 has the same seating capacity (or higher if you reduce the cargo hold) as the Dash 7, but is more economical and is faster. Except for the harbour runway in downtown London, I don't think that the STOL capabilities of the -7 were ever really utilized. The -8 is no slouch though. still has fairly decent take-off and landing capabilities. If memory serves me correct there were only 100 -7's ever produced. Serial #'s 1 and 2 were prototype and test a/c. AirBC did operate 3 -7's at one time including serial # 3. I beleive that a/c originally operated in Spain prior to AirBC aquiring it. It was retired in the late 80's and returned to de Havilland for examination as it apparently was the highest time -7 in operation. From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:51 From: ingmarogun.hedblom@nykoping.mail.telia.com Subject: SAS DC8 ditching Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telia Internet Services Reply-To: ingmarogun.hedblom@nykoping.mail.telia.com Somebody asked some days ago for info regarding a ditching in the 1960s: Yes,there was an accident with a DC-8-62 from SAS, with Norwegian registration LN-MOO, that crashed into Santa Monica Bay 6 miles out of Los Angeles International airport on Jan 13, 1969. The aircraft originated in Copenhagen with a stop in Seattle.The aircraft was on an instrument approach to runway 07R. Of the 45 persons onboard 30 survived with minor or no injuries. The fuselage broke into 3 pieces of which one section floated for about 20 hours. Probable cause was lack of crew coordination and inadequate monitoring of aircraft position which resulted in an unplanned descent into the water. Contributingfactor was an apparent ubsafe landinbg gear condition induced by the design of the landing gear indication lights.Ingmar Hedblom, Aviation Safety Department, Aiation Authority Sweden From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:51 From: ei7gm@iol.ie (Paul Kearney) Subject: Re: Outsourced Airline A/C Maintenance References: <32B80B91.75F2@wwisp.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ireland On-Line Reply-To: ei7gm@iol.ie "t. smith" wrote: : In the end, there is *no* substitute, *none*, that is better than : dedicated, well-paid and and well provided for teams of mechanics, : working on their own airplanes, for their own airlines, that in exchange : for taking a personal interest in the quality and longevity of their : work, are rewarded with steady, middle-class incomes and livelihoods. WELL SAID The sense of All-for-one and One-for-all is greater in the above than it is in a 3rd party Establishment Result , QUALITY and STANDARDS ARE HIGHER AND MORE RELIABLE. bye Someone who has first hand experience in both the above and more recently in the opposite ! As the 'song' goes... " I know, for I was that Soldier " From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:51 From: d*c8ray@airmail.net* (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: 737: Take-off without flaps? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA As a result of the NW Detroit accident, most airlines have changed their taxi checklist to include a the phrase "Flaps 15(or whatever), Taxi checklist". This was in response to a recommedation by the NTSB to provide a "key" to lower the flaps for takeoff. The NW crew was distracted by a runway change and never ran the taxi check. By the time they were done with recomputing takeoff performance for the new runway, they had pasted the point where the taxi checklist is called for. As a result, the flaps were never set. I think this change is a good idea. Trying to takeoff with flaps set has happened to all of us and I believe the change to checklist procedure works. Ray Clawson WARNING: The return email address field has been altered to foil bulk email spammers. If you reply to this message please remove the * from the return address or it'll bounce. From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:51 From: johnmhunt@ipa.net (John M. Hunt) Subject: Re: 737: Take-off without flaps? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Partners of America "Mark E. Ingram" wrote: >On 12 Dec 1996, Art Intemann wrote: > >> Andrew Goldfinger wrote: >> > >> > So -- if you are in a commercial jet and arrive at the runway with the >> > flaps not deployed, what should you do? Call for the flight attendent as >> > urgently as you can, or sit back and do nothing? > >> As soon as the throttles are advanced for takeoff, a warning horn >> will alert the crew if the flaps are not in a takeoff position. > >I think that the whole point of this thread, originally, was that had >there been an alert flap-watcher on the Northwest MD-80 in Detroit (DTW), >or on the Delta B-727 in Dallas (DFW), a lot of lives might have been >save. > >In both cases, the takeoff warning systems failed to do their jobs. In considering this thread two thoughts have come to mind: 1) Why would it not be possible to require a designated flight attendant to visually check flap and slats position? This certainly is an extremely minor and unobjectionable task. Obviously union opportunism could interpret this requirement as an excuse for pay increase, but I thought that kind of smokestack industry thinking was fairly rare nowadays, at least in the US. 2) I would think it would be almost beyond the realm of possibility for a passenger to establish communication with a flight attendant, given the very limited time available and the semi-discipline imposed on passengers during taxi and takeoff procedures. Additionally, I would think the first thought that would occur to a flight attendant in the limited time available that this is some sort of nut whose activities (even if limited to voice communications) represent a potential threat to the aircraft. 3) I find it very, very unlikely that it would even occur to a flight attendant that a passenger (unless wearing an Airline or military flight uniform) could possibly have any understanding whatsoever of aircraft, flight; etc. - - John M. Hunt johnmhunt@ipa.net From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:51 From: johnmhunt@ipa.net (John M. Hunt) Subject: Re: 737: Take-off without flaps? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Partners of America ifly wrote: >There was a 747 (Lufty, I think) in Africa in about 1978 if I recall >correctly, that took off without LED`s deployed and crashed as a result. To the very large number of readers of this group who don't subscribe to rec.sports.soccer, a bit of translation is required. "Lufty" presumably is Lufthansa. For some unimaginable reason virtually everyone in the otherwise gloriously literate UK and the Republic of Ireland insist on using slang expressions for every third word. - - John M. Hunt johnmhunt@ipa.net From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:51 From: "Bilal Yousuf" Subject: Re: Static from Cross-feed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services A) There are structural advantages to keeping as much weight as possible in the outer wing. Therefore, the center tank is not fueled unless needed for the range, and if it is fueled, it is used first. B) The B747 can be ground conditioned, but if ground AC is not available the APU is used to drive the aircraft airconditioning system, which does create a lot of heat in the area fwd and under the wing. From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:51 From: "Erich" Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ACAY Network Computing P/L, Sydney AUSTRALIA FBW failure has to be put in context. What are the chances of both pilots failing due to heart attacks or the like? It must be a well documented part of the FAA's risk analysis doctrin. I'd be surprised if it was any safer than 1 in 10^9 hours of flying. Eric From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:52 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca A few more comments on the "unreliability" of a "million lines of code" software. A single program with a million lines of code will be more prone to errors than 100 programs with a thousand lines of codes each. If your software runs on a proven operating system, or on different computers, modules are not likely to pollute other modules with memory leaks etc. So you are looking at certifying separate smaller modules instead of one huge module. The ods of errors in smaller modules is much smaller than in a larger module. Furthermore, in a "client-server" environment, you can test how the server will respond to requests (whether valid or invalid) and how the client will respond to responses (valid or invalid). This is not as easy to do whith one large program with multiple subroutines calling each other. Whether the software is bug free or not is not really the issue. What is the issue is how the software reacts to unanticipated inputs (eg: plane in the air but landing gear system tells the computer it is on the ground or vice-versa). If such conditions are known, they would be documented in technical manuals for the plane so pilots know to to handle such situations, so they can also be included in the programming so that the computers know how to handle this situation. If such conditions are unknown, then the pilots will have to respond to erroneous warning lights on a conventional planes, or erroneous behaviour or warnings on a FBW plane. From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:52 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >A single program with a million lines of code will be more prone to >errors than 100 programs with a thousand lines of codes each. >If your software runs on a proven operating system, or on different >computers, modules are not likely to pollute other modules with memory >leaks etc. So you are looking at certifying separate smaller modules >instead of one huge module. The ods of errors in smaller modules is much >smaller than in a larger module. However, the odds of inter-process communication failures increase, so all you've done is move the errors from one part of the system to another. Given how much of my time ends up being wasted on various sorts of interoperability problems between software and hardware that is supposedly standards-compliant (and thus interoperable), I would not be in *too* big a hurry to make this trade. That's not to say monolithic, mainframe style computing designs are a good thing -- my employer's entire business is built upon servers which do just one job (file service), but are therefore simple enough to do that one job faster, more reliably, and with cheaper hardware than a "Swiss Army knife" approach. We still have to talk with the rest of the world, though, and it's not always trivial to do correctly. -- 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 Jan 4 03:55:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:52 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca Robert Dorsett wrote: > and say "THIS is the way it's done." We're still on the learning curve. > A brand new learning curve. It's a learning curve that will be hard- > fought, and that will by necessity be very proprietary, very institutional. > The lessons and processes will stay with their originators, and will not > be shared. Five years from now, the 777's systems will look "OLD and ANTIQUATED", just as the 767's systems are no longer state of the art and DC9 systems are fit for museums. When the 747 came out, I am sure some feared flying in it because it was so big and feared it would not take off etc. Anything new attracts fear. But after a few years of operation, people forget about those fears and focus on something else. When microwave ovens came along, there were fears of cancer due to microwave leaks. Now, those are barely mentioned. When you look back over the history, you don't find any revolutions, you find an evolution. FBW is just another step from direct mechanical controls, some of them being hydrolically assisted, some of them being hydrolically driven, some of them being electrically driven, and now, FBW simply means that there are no remaining direct controls and all are electrically switched/operated. In the same veins, FMCs have also evolved from being able to keep heading/altitude, to being able to have waypoints and change in direction, to being able to autoland, and now, being able to judge actions relative to the capabilities of the aircraft. The Airbus and 777 systems are "revolutionary" only in being the first generations where plane systems start to talk/monitor each other to have a more complete view of what is going on (as opposed to portions operating totally independantly from each other with only the pilot to monitor what is really going on). From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:52 From: Bill Chivers Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chivers Consultants In article , MegaZone writes > >See, it's called redundancy. Most of the time there are at least 3, usually >4 or more, systems for each task. And on critical cases different software >is run on the different systems. So that you can *never* have a single >point of failure in the code cause a crititcal failure. You would have to >have *all* systems fail in the same way at the same time, despite the >different code. The odds of that are incomprehensible. >Take the Space Shuttle. It has 5 main computers. To my knowledge there >has never been a simultaneous failure that threatened a mission due to >software. > >No one is stupid enough to fly an airfraft with FBW without redundant systems >and with the possibility of universal code failure. > Hmmm. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I have a recollection of reading (in 'Flight') that the 777 has 3 sets of identical FBW software, and I think that this is the point which is of concern, i.e. that if a combination of inputs which causes a 'crash' (software I mean) occurs, all the systems will go down together. Whereas Airbus employ code written by different teams, and it could therefore be argued that the chances of total failure are less, because a combination of inputs which will simultaneously crash *different* sets of software should be vanishingly unlikely. The counter argument is that different software teams still come from the same industry, with the same way of thinking, working from the same specification, and are therefore likely to make similar mistakes. As for myself, I don't know, not being a software expert. And as I don't know enough to make an informed judgement, it concerns me. Still, I don't suppose I'll fly in a 777 for a few years - no prospect of a job on one and I don't earn enough to jet around the world! One things for certain - come New Years Eve 1999, I'm not planning on being on, in or near anything computer controlled. I'll be hiding deep underground with my savings (in cash) stuffed underneath my mattress ;-) Bill Chivers 'my other signature file has something funny at the bottom of it' From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:52 From: boyd@france3.fr (Boyd Roberts) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: France 3 In article , dmarble@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu says... > >One that sticks in my mind was a complex >weight/balance/weapons release subsystem that did not check to see if >the aircraft was in inverted flight before releasing pylon-mounted >bombs under the wings. > Well this is exactly the sort of risk that badly designed FBW introduces. If I, the pilot, want to do something outside of the normal flight envelope I should have the right, because, when I want to do it, it is probably indicated. Multiply redundant voting systems can argue till they halt. The pilot should always have the final say, like is says in the doc: PIC -- Pilot In Command. Systems that second guess are just broken. -- Boyd Roberts N 31 447109 5411310 ``Not only is UNIX dead, but it's starting to smell really bad.'' -- rob From kls Sat Jan 4 03:55:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 03:55:52 From: matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. >Upsizing the 62K engine's fan just a little -- enough to get a bit >more thrust without resorting to the potentially substantial air- >frame mods needed to accomodate A330-class engines -- probably is >not an economically viable option for the engine manufacturers. > >>... I would have thought that the wing was just about pushed >>it its limit. In short, is the wing going to be able to lift the >>weight necessary to get the full A330-200 range even if the aircraft >>has bigger engines? I don't pushing the engine performance of the existing GE engines is in the cards. the 62k rating was at the top of the CF-60C2 to begin with. The fact that they couldn't get more out of the design drove the GE90 program. Certainly the JT9D-7Q's used on some 767's aren't going to grow either, they were also the last of the breed. The RR G and H engines available are now the same as used on the 747-400, and they are biggest and the last of the RB211 family as well. Some late 767's have PW4000's, and there is growth their, the question is: is there sufficient market to justify the investment to do so? It seems to me that a growth version of either the RR or GE engines for these aircraft just isn't in the cards. My opinions anyway. From kls Sat Jan 4 04:01:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 04:01:35 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > >Upsizing the 62K engine's fan just a little -- enough to get a bit > >more thrust without resorting to the potentially substantial air- > >frame mods needed to accomodate A330-class engines -- probably is > >not an economically viable option for the engine manufacturers. ... > I don't pushing the engine performance of the existing GE engines is in the > cards. the 62k rating was at the top of the CF-60C2 to begin with. > The fact that they couldn't get more out of the design drove the > GE90 program. Not true. The CF6-80E1, for the A330, goes up to the 70K. It has a larger fan, 62K may be the limit for the CF6-80C2 version, but the next step doesn't require a GE90. > Certainly the JT9D-7Q's used on some 767's aren't going to grow > either, they were also the last of the breed. They're irrelevant -- it's out of production, and the 767-300(ER), which accounts for nearly half the 767 production, was never built with the JT9D. (The first few 767-300s built, non-ERs, have JT9Ds. JAL has them and according to Boeing, they're the only -300s with JT9Ds. The rest have the PW4000, CF6-80, or in a couple of cases, the RB.211.) > The RR G and H engines available are now the same as used on the > 747-400, and they are biggest and the last of the RB211 family as > well. The Trent, used on the A330 and 777, is still an RB.211 at heart. They just changed the name when they went to the bigger fan. > Some late 767's have PW4000's ... First flight was in 1987. According to Boeing figures for 767 deliveries as of 6/30/96, 118 had the PW4000 (with 24 more on order) and 100 had the JT9D. (With 615 deliveries at that point and the only RB.211 examples being 24 for British Airways, with 1 more on order and 3 on order for China Yunnan, the CF6-80 has obviously garnered the lion's share of the 767 market.) -- 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 Jan 4 04:01:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 04:01:35 From: MATT@erika.firstsol.com Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Interestingly enough the first 767 delivered with PW4000 is the Lauda Air 767 that went down in Thailand a few years ago. To this day I don't the official accident report has ever been published, although it apparently isn't any secret what happened. What they don't want to talk about is what didn't happen. Aircraft should never have crashed, major major screwup in the cockpit. There was an obviously solution to the problem, and to this day, no one has any idea why they didn't do it. It takes some 23 minutes from first indication until the aircraft augers in, so isn't as if they didn't have time. From kls Sat Jan 4 04:01:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jan 97 04:01:35 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: <199612282209.PAA02760@h2o.firstsol.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > Interestingly enough the first 767 delivered with PW4000 is the Lauda > Air 767 that went down in Thailand a few years ago. An interesting coincidence if it was true, but it's not. The first 767 flown with PW4000 engines (I'm not sure if it was the first to be delivered or not) was delivered to Lauda, but it wasn't the accident aircraft. Here's the info on both of them: reg msn ln model 1st flt delivry --- ----- ---- ----- ------- ------- OE-LAU 23764 158 767-3Z9(ER) 7Apr87 29Apr88 OE-LAV 24628 283 767-3Z9(ER) 26Sep89 16Oct89 -- 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 Jan 5 03:22:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:33 From: Artus_R@DELETE_THISmediasoft.net (Richard Artus) Subject: Re: B727 "spin" accident? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NotMuch In article , ghs@netcom.com (Gautam H. Shah) wrote: > I'm trying to find some information on a 727 crash which > purportedly involved a spin of the airplane. All I know is > that it was in the 70's, it was a cargo plane, and possibly > in the Catskill Mountains of New York. ... > The lore as I heard it was that the pilot knew he was in an > unusual and unrecoverable situation, and > kept radioing the airplane's conditions, behavior, etc. all the > way down, in the hopes it would help the investigators later on. This wouldn't be the Northwest 727 that had an overspeed and stall warning going off at the same time was it! Seems to me there was a crash like this about that time. Now the 727 has a Pitot heat "Off" light as a result of that crash! From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:34 From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: L1011 vs. DC-10 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Astracon (astracon@aol.com) wrote: : It occurred to me recently that while L1011's are starting to fall to the : scrap-man's torch fairly often these days, DC-10's (same generation, : approx. same size) are soldiering on as long-haul passenger aircraft : throughout the world, and in fact some are even being overhauled to start : new lives as freighters. : Is there a good reason for this? - plain old economics or did the DC-10 : airframe have a lot more "life" designed into it? I think the DC-10s still in service are more recent manufacture than the original DC-10-10s from the early 70s. A few 1011s were built as late as 1980 or so but none since then; DC-10s were built much later. In other words, the DC-10s continuing in service are newer than the 1011s that are being scrapped. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:34 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: L1011 vs. DC-10 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > I think the DC-10s still in service are more recent manufacture >than the original DC-10-10s from the early 70s. A few 1011s were built >as late as 1980 or so but none since then; DC-10s were built much later. Perhaps some, but certainly not all. American recently sold 14 DC-10-10s to FedEx, with delivery at a rate of one per month. The first delivery, in October, was N102AA, the third DC-10 off the production line. November's delivery was N103AA (LN 5, the plane involved in the 1972 cargo door incident over Windsor, Ontario). Both of these planes had been taken out of service and stored at Ft. Worth's Alliance Airport since 1993, but it looks like they'll be flying for a number of years to come. (Except for the last of the 14 planes AA will deliver to FedEx, all had been taken out of service and stored.) FedEx is also getting all 36 of United's remaining DC-10-10s over the next few years, including some very early ones. Here's what the status is of the first ten DC-10s: 1 N101AA AA, stored MZJ (Marana, AZ) - broken up? 2 N220AU Project Orbis (flying eye hospital) 3 N102AA AA => FedEx 10/96 4 N1801U UA => FedEx, stored LAS (Las Vegas, NV) 5 N103AA AA => FedEx 11/96 6 N1802U UA => FedEx, stored LAS 7 N104AA broken up 9/95 (retired by AA) 8 N1803U UA => FedEx, stored LAS 9 N105AA AA => FedEx 10/97, stored AMA (Alliance, Ft. Worth, TX) 10 N1804U broken up 10/93 (retired by UA) If you think about FedEx's operation, geriatric planes like this aren't a big problem -- most of them just fly a single round-trip from Memphis each day, and only five days per week, so they still have plenty of life left in them. -- 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 Jan 5 03:22:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:34 From: Larry Ludwick Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GTE Intelligent Network Services, GTE INS Reply-To: lludwick@gte.net Gary Moffitt wrote: > > In article , davidl@wr.com.au wrote: > > I had a number of questions concerning fuel dumping: [SNIP] > > 2. Does the fuel vaporise before reaching the ground ? > > In those cases where an aircraft didn't make it to Lake Michigan we never > recieved a report of fuel hitting the ground. I used to collect rain water for my aquariums by setting a container on the ground in my back yard. I had to stop because my fish started to die. I live in the flight path for Tampa International, so I started looking and, sure enough, found a film of what looked like kerosene on top of the water. I suspect it came from either unburned fuel in the exhaust from full throttle take-offs, or from dumping on final. What would you suspect? I live about four miles from the end of the runway, on a direct line for runway 18R. Larry From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:34 From: edittmer@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Edward Dittmer) Subject: Embraer Turboprop Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus Free-Net Does anyone know anything about this plane? Is it one of these little puddlejumpers that crashes all the time or is it a real plane? -- Edward P. Dittmer edittmer@freenet.columbus.oh.us From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:35 From: Mark Anderson Subject: Re: aircraft performance in descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Reply-To: hawaii@aloha.net If both aircraft fly the same speed, the lighter one will have steeper desent angle over the heavy one. During desents, speed becomes most limiting as desent deck angle as limited with weight and speed. From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:35 From: boardsailot@earthlink.net (Gabe Sanders) Subject: Re: aircraft performance in descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. On 03 Jan 97 04:36:35 , pmacdou367@aol.com (PMacdou367) wrote: >Could anyone with a background in aircraft performance please give me a >good explanation of this "fact". > >2 identical planes are at FL350, however 1 weighs 200k and the other 300k. >IF they both conduct a flight idle, same IAS, descent, the heavier >airplane will have a lower rate of descent, contrary to what one's >intuition would tell them. Therefore if you are plannning a descent then a >heavier airplane must start a descent earlier because of the lower rate. Yes, this is definitely true with a constant airspeed. (Many experienced pilots are unaware of this.) The easy explanation is, that the heavier airplane has much more potential energy to dissipate in its descent than the lighter one. So at the same speed, it will take longer to get down. The more politically correct explanation; At the same airspeed a heavier airplane will be much closer to L/D (lift over drag) max. The closer to L/D max the better the driftdown. For example, a heavy airplane l/d max may be about 240 kts. while the same airplane with less weight may have a 220 kt. l/d max. So if both airplanes were to descent at 300 kts., the heavy airplane would be producing more lift to drag and result in a lower descent rate. If both airplanes flew at l/d max both airplanes would have the same descent rate, but the heavier airplane would fly farther because it's flying faster. Hope this is understandable. Gabe US-M5 Windsurfing Treasure Coast Aerotech/Protech/Gulftech From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:35 From: "Dave & RuthAnne Clickner" Subject: Re: Engine noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Robert M. Sherry wrote in article ... > While waiting for a pre-dawn flight last week, I noticed that > both Stage 2 and 3 jets appear (to me, at least) to produce > almost equal amounts of low-frequency noise... Stage 2 or 3 is based on the weight of the aircraft and the noise level. A 767 can make a lot of noise and be stage 3 while a 727 can make less and be stage 2. And yes there is a very large difference in the noise levels of stage 2 and stage 3 for a single aircraft type. clickner@ix.netcom.com From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:35 From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Engine noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University On 27 Dec 96 13:32:25 , "Robert M. Sherry" wrote: >So just out of curiousity, are there different standards for >sound *frequency* in the stage 2/3 specs, or is it purely a >measure of decibels? Given what I know from tinkering with >speakers, a low frequency sound may not be percieved as as >loud as one of higher frequency, even if both are of the >same power. So are engine manufacturers more likely to try >and block the high frequency fan whine than the overall >exhaust roar? The difference in tone between the DC-9 and F100 is mainly due to the difference in engine bypass ratio. The DC9 engine has a bypass ratio around 1.0. The F100 uses R-R Tay engine with bypass ratios around 3.0. Lower bypass ratios mean more high frequency noise which the human ear can pick more easily. When certificating aircraft they use the Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) which is measured in EPNdB. First the sound pressure levels are corrected for tones (e.g. high frequency noise) producing the a Perceived Noise Level (PNL) in PNdB. The duration of the noise is then taken into account by integrating the noise energy (integration limits are -10dB from max level) to the EPNL. As commented in another post the small difference is noise level you heard between a stage 2 and a stage 3 is probably because the stage 2 aircraft was lighter and hence climbed faster away from you. Many airlines also derate the take-off power to increase engine life. If there is sufficient runway length available or the aircraft is light they may only use 70% of max T/O power for take-off. From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:35 From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: Ethiopian 767 crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM With the recent Ethiopian Airlines accident and with the Air Canada no fuel emergency when the 767 first came out (which I seem to remember happened twice, but I could be wrong), has the 767 spent more time in air with no gas that any other type of jetliner? You don't frequently hear about planes running out of fuel, but the 767 seems to have become associated with empty fuel tanks, of course not the fault of the aircraft, just a series of coincidences. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:36 From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: ET 767 Ditch Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In reply as well to whoever started the thread about survivable ditchings, I happened to be in Pensacola when they were salvaging the 727 that went into the bay on a non-precision approach. This was back about '78 or so. It was in extraordinarily good shape. Water stains, and very slight rippling in the fuselage skin under the forward windows and the forwards cabin doors were the only visible evidence of any distress. 727-200's were worth engough money back then that it was refurbished and sold for freight, I don't recall to whom. Fuselage mounted engines probably make a ditching a lot easier. -- Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney System Test Team Leader C/O Boeing Comm AP grp. From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:36 From: "Andre Neves" Subject: Ethiopian crash, Gimli, RAT and FLAPS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUnet Portugal I've been reading all comments about these issues in the newsgroup but have NOT yet acquired any certainty about RAT alone being or not able to deploy flaps or/and slats, them being essential to a safe landing! Can somebody that knows this issue in depth tell me about it! (The 767 of Air Canada had a huge amount of time running on the RAT to be able to deploy them, even slowly. If they didn't it seems to me it is really unsufficient the certification standard, they should be able in 10/15 minutes to deploy them). From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:36 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Ethiopian crash, Gimli, RAT and FLAPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I've ... NOT yet acquired any certainty about RAT alone being or not >able to deploy flaps or/and slats, them being essential to a safe landing! ... >The 767 of Air Canada had a huge amount of time running on >the RAT to be able to deploy them, even slowly. Flaps add a *lot* of drag. If you are gliding and aren't sure you'll be able to make it to an airport, deploying the flaps long before you actually get to the airport is the last thing you'd want to do. -- 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 Jan 5 03:22:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:36 From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Are Two Engine 757 & 767 Jets Dangerous? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > This has been a very interesting discussion, but I'm wondering > if it isn't focusing on the wrong things. If I recall correctly ... > and improving containment of engine failures. Trying to > further mitigate the already-improbable case of multiple > independent engine failures doesn't look like a winning strategy. Interesting points and questions. In airplanes and engines that are designed for ETOPS, considerable care is taken for common mode and fraternal damage. The situation in the DC-10 where all three hydraulic system's lines were right next to each other wouldn't cut it for ETOPS. As an example, the electrical cables that carry the throttle position signal in an ETOPS twin typically run well apart from each other for each engine, and for each channel of the dual channel electronic engine control. A typical route on one side would be that one channel will run up the leading edge and the left side of the fuselage, and the other up the trailing edge, and around over the cabin and up the right side. We even have to design the fuel and oil plumbing so that if the right engine throws a fan blade under the fuselage at the left engine, it won't cut any of the lines. (This means the lines either go on the left side of the engine, or higher up.) This is, of course, after we have succesfully demonstrated explosively releasing a fan blade and containing it. Boeing runs "blade out" tests as well, which also assume that we've failed ours, and blow a simulated fan blade through a fully pressurized fuselage, and show that the tear doesn't propagate. Containing disks (much heavier than blades) doesn't seem practical. The approach for these is to run pacer endurance engines to put more cycles on a test engine than anybody else's has, and establish a safe life. -- Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney System Test Team Leader C/O Boeing Comm AP grp. From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:36 From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: A340-600X ??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > high end of the B777 market. Ironically, GE has yet to sign up a > customer to use the GE90 for the B777-300. I wonder if GE will now make > a push for the GE90-100B since the A340-600X is put on hold. Andrew, Interesting question. I'm hearing rumors they're trying to offer a clipped fan GE90 for the 767-400X. I wonder also, how a heavy A330 with GP7000's might sell. Nifty web site you've made there, btw :-) -- Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney System Test Team Leader C/O Boeing Comm AP grp. From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:36 From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Bill Chivers (Bill@chivcons.demon.co.uk) wrote: : >See, it's called redundancy. Most of the time there are at least 3, usually : >4 or more, systems for each task. And on critical cases different software : Whereas Airbus employ code written by different teams, and it could : therefore be argued that the chances of total failure are less, because : a combination of inputs which will simultaneously crash *different* sets : of software should be vanishingly unlikely. : The counter argument is that different software teams still come from : the same industry, with the same way of thinking, working from the same : specification, and are therefore likely to make similar mistakes. This subject has been discussed on comp.software.engineering, among other places, and while there is not unanimity, the general feeling in the software profession is that the effort is better spent in making one program as good as possible than in making several different versions, i.e., for a given number of labor hours or dollars, the most reliable software results from making one "version" of the software as good as possible. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:37 From: "Peter Ashwood-Smith" Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada >>A single program with a million lines of code will be more prone to >>errors than 100 programs with a thousand lines of codes each. > >>If your software runs on a proven operating system, or on different >>computers, modules are not likely to pollute other modules with memory >>leaks etc. So you are looking at certifying separate smaller modules >>instead of one huge module. The ods of errors in smaller modules is much >>smaller than in a larger module. > >However, the odds of inter-process communication failures increase, >so all you've done is move the errors from one part of the system to >another. Yes, you have moved problems from one place to another but you have reduced the total number of catastrophic problems dramatically. In that 1 million line program any errant process can reak havok with all the other processes. With the 100 smaller modules a complete catastrophic failure is less likely but deadlock type problems are more likely. One way to make the single CPU/single module system very reliable is to properly isolate all tasks with fixed CPU bounds on each task, fixed memory bounds etc. I don't know what approach is taken with the 777 and Airbus software but I sure as hell hope the modules are either physically isolated (separate CPU/memory) or totally logically isoated with fixed CPU/memory bounds. Anybody know for sure what kind of architectures the Boeing and Airbus systems use? Cheers, Peter -- Peter Ashwood-Smith | Email: petera@nortel.ca Northern Telecom | Work#: (613) 763-4534 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Home#: (819) 595-9032 From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:37 From: "Peter Ashwood-Smith" Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada >Five years from now, the 777's systems will look "OLD and ANTIQUATED", >just as the 767's systems are no longer state of the art and DC9 systems >are fit for museums. Depends on how you define state of the art. If your objective is to optimize safety there are some that would argue that automation is not necessarily making things safer. What it is doing is making things cheaper and lighter. >The Airbus and 777 systems are "revolutionary" only in being the first >generations where plane systems start to talk/monitor each other to have >a more complete view of what is going on (as opposed to portions >operating totally independantly from each other with only the pilot to >monitor what is really going on). What bothers me is not having a FBW. Flight management however when taken to the extremes of Airbus where it not only manages it enforces I find it very disturbing. Since it is very difficult if not impossible to get all of the conditions correct in the software it would seem prudent to simply advise the pilot instead of limiting his actions. I also find the lack of feedback in Airbus systems to be a poor design choice. So much useful information can be obtained by the feel of the controls the only reason I can think of for eliminating it is weight/cost savings. Cheers, Peter -- Peter Ashwood-Smith | Email: petera@nortel.ca Northern Telecom | Work#: (613) 763-4534 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Home#: (819) 595-9032 From kls Sun Jan 5 03:22:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 97 03:22:37 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zip News In article , nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca says... > >A few more comments on the "unreliability" of a "million lines of code" >software. > >A single program with a million lines of code will be more prone to >errors than 100 programs with a thousand lines of codes each. > >If your software runs on a proven operating system, or on different >computers, modules are not likely to pollute other modules with memory >leaks etc. So you are looking at certifying separate smaller modules >instead of one huge module. The odds of errors in smaller modules is > much smaller than in a larger module. > .... So I suppose what he MEANT to say was "A program with 100,000 lines will be more prone to fail than a thousand programs of a thousand lines each." That amounts to a kind of software error, I suppose. And Karl's response, in not catching this error, amounts to ANOTHER software error. Gentlemen: this is not too promising! :) Regards brian whatcott Altus OK From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:43 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Ethiopian crash, Gimli, RAT and FLAPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) In article "Andre Neves" writes: >I've been reading all comments about these issues in the newsgroup >but have NOT yet acquired any certainty about RAT alone being or not >able to deploy flaps or/and slats, them being essential to a safe landing! That is a flawed assumption. Flaps-up landings are an abnormal procedure, not an emergency. It is a reduction of the safety margin, not an elimination of the safety margin. >Can somebody that knows this issue in depth tell me about it! >(The 767 of Air Canada had a huge amount of time running on >the RAT to be able to deploy them, even slowly. If they didn't >it seems to me it is really unsufficient the certification standard, >they should be able in 10/15 minutes to deploy them). The design of the hydrualic system is such that the slats and flaps will not be deployed as a result of RAT pressure, as someone else has already noted. -- 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 Jan 6 01:41:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:44 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: aircraft performance in descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) boardsailot@earthlink.net (Gabe Sanders) writes: >>2 identical planes are at FL350, however 1 weighs 200k and the other 300k. >>IF they both conduct a flight idle, same IAS, descent, the heavier >>airplane will have a lower rate of descent, contrary to what one's >>intuition would tell them. Which a/c will have the better "Gimli range" to invent a new term of art? Can the lighter one use a lower IAS and thus.... -- 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....................................20915-1433 From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:44 From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Engine noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. In article , "Dave & RuthAnne Clickner" wrote: >Stage 2 or 3 is based on the weight of the aircraft and the noise level. A >767 can make a lot of noise and be stage 3 while a 727 can make less and be >stage 2. And yes there is a very large difference in the noise levels of >stage 2 and stage 3 for a single aircraft type. I was quite surprised recently to discover that our (United's) older 747-100's and 200's, which are Stage 2, get classified Stage 3 when flying red-eye from HNL to SFO, apparently due to a pre-dawn noise requirement at SFO. I've been unable to determine if the "modification" is anything more than placing a placard in the flight deck that in essence says "this is a Stage 3 airplane". Perhaps there's also a largely irrelevant maximum take-off weight reduction - irrelevant due to the relatively short flight and resulting fuel on board as I've never been aware of a 747 off HNL to the West Coast being wwight restricted (unlike the DC-10-10's). -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:44 From: jaded@earthlink.net (S.L.) Subject: Y2K - sources of info Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Sorry if this has been discussed in the past, but is there any source of information on to what extent the aviation industry might be exposed to the Y2K issue? I was thinking in terms of ATC, onboard systems, etc. Thanks Steve From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:44 From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Ethiopian crash, Gimli, RAT and FLAPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>I've ... NOT yet acquired any certainty about RAT alone being or not >>able to deploy flaps or/and slats, them being essential to a safe landing! >... >>The 767 of Air Canada had a huge amount of time running on >>the RAT to be able to deploy them, even slowly. > >Flaps add a *lot* of drag. If you are gliding and aren't sure you'll >be able to make it to an airport, deploying the flaps long before you >actually get to the airport is the last thing you'd want to do. To add to what Karl said, flaps are *NOT* essential to a safe landing although they make it easier. In the landing configuration, flaps add mostly drag (takeoffs, when done with flaps, are with much less flaps - adding lift but not so much drag - for the light planes I fly, take-offs are normally flap less but for some conditions, you would use 10 to 25 degrees of flap. Landings are done with full flaps - usually 40 degrees). The two advantages of flaps for landing is a lower approach speed and a steeper approach angle. The lower approach speed of course translates to less runway used. In a "dead-stick" situation, flaps are typically not added until landing is assured. I have landed every model in which I have been checked out at least once (for practice) without flaps. Not difficult at all and improves controllability in high cross-winds. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:44 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: Static from Cross-feed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca Bilal Yousuf wrote: > B) The B747 can be ground conditioned, but if ground AC is not available the > APU is used to drive the aircraft airconditioning system, which does create > a lot of heat in the area fwd and under the wing. When a plane is at a gate, I assume those yellow/orange flexible pipes are the ones used to supply air to the plane. But I would also assume that electrical power is also supplied from the ground so that the aircraft need not rely on its APU. Is this a correct assumption ? So, if the airport does not supply forced air, wouldn't the aircraft at least use ground electrical power to run its fans and airconditioners ? Furthermore, I am somewhat puzzled at the though that the air conditioners under the fuel tanks would have caused the tanks to heat up so much. Where/how do air conditioning units on an aircraft dump their excess heat ? (at ground and during flight). Do they just dump in in the cargo hold ? From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:45 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: 767-400ERX (Was `Delta A340 order?') References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca re: article in a magazine about Boing courting Delta for the 767-400 H Andrew Chuang wrote: > is an obvious move. It's interesting that you questioned this report > of Delta's potential interest in the B767-400ERX, but I don't remember > you doubting reports of Delta's interest in the A330/340. I, in now way, am questioning our doubting that Boeing is courting Delta. I was just wondering if the report in the magazine was based on official/public statements made by Boeing, by Delta, or was based on "unnamed sources", or just educated speculation. I was also wondering if Boeing and/or Delta would use such public relations methods to influence a decision or demoralise Airbus etc etc. It is clear that Airbus is aware of its bad image in the USA. They are taking steps to clean it up. The fact that their web site is based in the USA (reston virginia) is such an indication. They are making TV ads as well. So I was wondering how much PR had to do with serious airplane buying decisions. From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:45 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca John Clear wrote: > As usual, you dont see the differances in scale. A $3.5billion subsidy > for the A330/A340 development (mentioned in an earlier post in this > thread), plus whatever amounts they received earlier, is ALOT more then a > couple of $100mil grants. The european governments provided REPAYABLE loans for the RESEARCH portion of the various aircrafts, up to the A321 which was entirely funded internally (well, since it is a derivative of the 320, the costs are much less!). check out http://www.airbus.com , they have a whole section on this very question. What you should count as a subsidy is not the loan amount, but any difference in debt repayment interests. > As usual, you conviently forget that all the Airbus partners have some > degree of military/space/other civilian contracts, so saying only US > companies have that benefit is just plain not true. It would be interesting to compare the differences in scale of the US military industry, or to be fair, the USA government military/space spending, and that of their european counterparts. If the USA insists on bragging about having the world's biggest and strongest army/navy, it should also accept that it also is the one spending the most on such activities. From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:45 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca Peter Ashwood-Smith wrote: > I also find the lack of feedback in Airbus systems to be a > poor design choice. So much useful information can be obtained > by the feel of the controls the only reason I can think of for > eliminating it is weight/cost savings. LACK OF FEEDBACK ????????? We've gone through this one before. This is utterly false. Airbus provides DIFFERENT feedback than Boeing does. Boeing simulates mechanical feedback on the controls while Airbus provides more complete information on its screens as well as audible feedback. You can gain much more USEFUL information from the displays which give you real and accurate measures, as opposed to "what you *feel* when you move the wheel". The one area where there seem to be complaints is the throttle on Airbus not matching any changes made by the computer. Do pilots leave their hands on the throttle throughout the flight to notice if engine throttle is being changed by the computer ? >From my point of view, I have no problem on MS Flight simulator looking at the screen to see what my throttle is at and pressing certain keys to increase/decrease it to the levels I want. This way I keep my eyes on the main display. Perhaps this is how it is done on the Airbus with actual and precise throttle indication displayed on the pilots main screen with the physical actuator acting like a glorified "+" and "-" keyboard keys to increase/decrease throttle till it gets to the desired value as displayed on the screen. From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:45 From: Kees de Lezenne Coulande <100121.1153@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Gimli 767 nose gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM C. Marin Faure (faurecm@halcyon.com) wrote: >Actually, this is wrong. The nosegear did not collapse during the >rollout. One end of Gimli field was used by a sports car club for road >rallys. On the day the 767 landed there was an event taking place on the >car track. The track was bordered by concrete Jersey barriers or some >other form of barrier fence. Because the 767 had no thrust reversers and >minimal braking, the landing rollout took it all the way to the car track >where it ran into one of these barriers just as it came to a stop. The >nose never even hit the ground, but sat down on top of the barrier. I >remember seeing photos of this here at Boeing shortly after the incident. >We sent an AOG team up there right away, and when they jacked the plane >up, they found the nose gear was relatively undamaged. It took only a >short time to fix it and the plane was flown out within a couple of days. >I remember all this was reported in the Boeing News a week or so after >the >incident. I don't know where the "skidding down the runway on its nose >with fire shooting out of things" idea started, maybe with the TV movie >or >the book, but the reality of the situation was the damage was very slight >and the nosewheel did not collapse until it hit the race track barrier, >by >which time the plane was barely moving. Mr Faure seems to have a rather strong opinion on the condition of the "Gimli glider" nosewheel. I have a copy of the official Canadian accident report (Final Report of the Board of Inquiry into Air Canada Boeing 767 C-GAUN Accident - Gimli, Manitoba, July 23, 1983, published in April 1985). This report states quite categorically that the unlocked nosewheel collapsed on first contact with the runway, and that this fact made a significant contribution to the aircraft deceleration. I quote from page 29 of Part II: The Factual Circumstances of the Accident: During the descent, First Officer Quintal had tried, without success, manually to lower and lock the nose wheel. As it turned out, his failure to do so helped to slow down the aircraft when it was on the ground, because of the friction caused by contact of the bottom of the nose with the concrete runway. This averted disaster to people at the far end of the runway. The airfield at Gimli is a disused military base. The far end of the runway from wherr the aircraft touched down has been adapted for use as a drag racing strip. Just beyond the strip used for racing, drag racing drivers ans their families were staying for the weekend in tents and caravans. Fortunately, the aircraft came to a stop before it reached them. The passengers and crew were safely evacuated. Both fuel tanks were found to be dry. End of quote. The condition of the landing gear is discussed in more detail in Part III: The Contributory Causes of the Accident, Section C: Equipment Failures and Deficiencies, Subsection 3: The Landing Gear. Quoting from page 101: A further problem First Officer Quintal had to contend with under these very trying circumstances was the lowering of the landing gear. This procedure had to be delayed until just before landing in order to maintain what is called a 'clean' aircraft. Lowering the landing gear produces drag and slows the aircraft down. For the purpose of the glide, such an effect was not required until immediately before the landing. With the failure of both engines, there was no source of electricity to power the hydraulics which, in normal circumstances, cause the main landing gear and the nose gear to extend and lock into position. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the flight crew to refer to the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures Section of the Boeing 767 Aircraft Operating Manual, which section is known as the Quick Reference Handbook. As reported by First Officer Quintal, when the time came to lower the landing gear, he selected the gear lever in the down position and nothing happened. He therefore looked at the Quick Reference Handbook. He could find no reference to landing gear free fall either in the index to the section on landing gear or in the section itself. Shortly before touchdown, First Officer Quintal selected the alternate gear extension switch to the down position. This had the effect of letting the gear wheels drop by their own weight. But only the main wheels locked down in the down position. A warning light in the cockpit indicated that the nose wheel was not locked into position. First Officer Quintal then referred to the index of the section on hydraulics but found nothing about free fall. He started looking through the section itself, but ran out of time. Because the nose wheel was not locked, as soon as it came in contact with the runway, it immediately collapsed and was forced back into the nose wheel housing. In the event, although this resulted in additional damage to the aircraft, it did have the effect of helping to slow the aircraft down. End of quote. Kees de Lezenne Coulander P.S. Although I cannot claim to be floatplane pilot, I have flown some circuits with a float-equipped Cessna 172 from lake Union in Seattle, under the guidance of the old Kurtzer himself no less. -- C.M. de Lezenne Coulander Amsterdam-Zuidoost The Netherlands E-mail: 100121.1153@compuserve.com Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B.V. Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:45 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA > I used to collect rain water for my aquariums by setting a container on > the ground in my back yard. I had to stop because my fish started to > die. > > I live in the flight path for Tampa International, so I started looking > and, sure enough, found a film of what looked like kerosene on top of > the water. I suspect it came from either unburned fuel in the exhaust > from full throttle take-offs, or from dumping on final. I would not suspect that the film came from fuel dumping, fuel dumping is not a normal procedure but rather an emergency procedure. I would suspect that what you collected is residue from turbine engine exhaust, or pehaps the by product of our generally polluted world. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:45 From: jackmor@iglou.com (Jack Mor) Subject: Near Collision Between El Al, Egyptian Planes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: J&T Associates, Inc. The Saudi Royal Family's refusal to allow El Al aircraft to establish aerial contact with control towers in Saudi Arabia almost caused an aviation disaster recently when an El Al plane flying without aerial coordination near Jeddah came close to colliding with an Egyptian plane flying at exactly the same altitude toward it. A collision was averted after the El Al pilot received warning from the emergency warning system. Following the incident, the Ministry of Transport, the Israel Association of Pilots and the Civil Aviation Authority are working at an international level to convince Saudi Arabia to enable aerial contact between El Al aircraft and that country's control towers. (Bloomberg..1/5). From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:45 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA > Regarding articles about fuel dumping and just out of curiosity: > > Is fuel dumping a dangerous operation in itself (not counting the emergency > that makes fuel dumping necessary)? Any increased fire or explosion risk? You bet there is. You are spraying vaporizing kerosene out of the trailing edge of a wing at 200 knots. That is why there is an FAR on the design requirements of a fuel jettison system. There are of course many design considerations and one of the primary ones is fire and explosion prevention. I recall reading about several inflight fires and subsequent crashes that were caused by fuel, leaking from a tank and being sucked into the air inlet of a combustion heater. Yes this was many years ago, back when airliners had combustion heaters, piston engines and were fueled by gasoline. But the same principles apply. So I don't think that it is a co-incidence that the FAR on fuel jettison systems requires that "Fuel or fumes do not enter any part of the airplane." -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Mon Jan 6 01:41:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:41:45 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: "Airframe" and DFDR's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA > Michael Crighton's new book "Airframe" (a fictional novel about a > fictional airframer investigating the cause of severe porpoising in > a fictional widebody) claims that an extremely high (~80) percentage > of Digital Flight Data Recorders in modern aircraft are partially or > fully non-functional. > > Does anyone have any information to refute/prove this? It seems > extremely unlikely. > Its just what it appears, fiction. Well stated, I know that my airline monitors dozens of various engine parameters that are collected through the DFDAU and FDR and down loaded to ground computers on a flight by flight basis. If a FDR system was inop or recieving bad info from DFDAU we'd know about it. Additionally FDR parameters are required by FAR's and airlines do not cross the FAA. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:43 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> : Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : In each example, the -400F's advantages are a payload increase of less : than 10%, fuel burn reduction of 10% to 16% (according to Boeing), and : elimination of the flight engineer. Given the huge disparity in : capital costs of a new 747-400F versus a 747-200, possibly converted : from a full depreciated 747-200B, these advantages are not terribly : compelling. The latter will not have a nose-door: so will not be able to load 20ft containers. Loading/unloading will take longer too. Whether that is enough to justify a $150m or thereabouts pricetag .... -- Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE* FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus- From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:43 From: falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > >Five years from now, the 777's systems will look "OLD and ANTIQUATED", > I also find the lack of feedback in Airbus systems to be a > poor design choice. So much useful information can be obtained > by the feel of the controls the only reason I can think of for > eliminating it is weight/cost savings. The pitch feel feedback in a 777 is controlled by the primary flight control computers. If you think they will misbehave due to software, (which I don't) then you shouldn't trust the feel. Artificially generated pitch feel has been around for a long time, implemented in analog or hydraulics. Much too much has been made of the issue. The reason for the moving wheels is to increase pilot's situational awareness of autopilot behavior, not feel. It does increase weight and cost, and increase maintenance cost, compared with side sticks. Weight and cost cannot be dismissed as trivial issues. (I'm wondering why it is that side sticks are OK in fighters and terrifying in airliners?) Charlie Falke Pratt & Whitney Aircraft System Test Team Leader 400 Main St. M.S. 121-05 203-565-9063 x1261 fax East Hartford, Ct 06108 From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:44 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > (I'm wondering why it is that side sticks are OK in fighters and >terrifying in airliners?) One might just as reasonably wonder why fighters don't have galleys and sleeper seats. As noted here *many* times before, airliners tend not to have ejection seats. Airliners also tend not to pull high G forces in their regular flight envelope, so the arm support advantages offered by a side-stick are of no consequence. -- 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 Jan 6 01:47:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:44 From: "Edward B. Soltyka" Subject: Re: Whatever happened to the Dash 7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell Network Solutions Reply-To: esoltyka@netaccess.on.ca Chris Nolan wrote: > > Does anyone know what has ever happend to the production run of the > DeHaviland Dash 7. Was the Dash 8 the replacement aircraft, and if so can > it mimic the Dash 7's noted short T/O and landing capabilities? The Dash8 was an economic replacement to the Dash7 not a technical improvement. The Dash7s legendary stol performance was deemed unneccessary as was the requirement for its ultra short balanced field take off requirements. When the Dash7 was conceived it was thought that it would be more viable to operate ultra stol aircraft from existing 2nd and 3rd world strips than to improve runway lengths. As the demand for safety requirements the balanced field capabilities of its 4 engines were unnecessary and economically unviable. Thus the need for the more economically efficient if less STOL capable DASH8 which more closely satisfied modern requirements. From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:44 From: "Mark A. Brown" Subject: Re: New ground proximity warning. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Dear Professor Kuchar, > > I'll be using this data for experiments with a 3D version of EGPWS, maybe > > adding a velocity vector (if the VV is on the hillside and the hillside > > is close, you could be in trouble!) and autopilot programmed flight path > > (for vertical path awareness) as well as experimenting with colour-coding. > > If you're interested in some previous research in this area, check out: > > http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/www/labs/ASL/terrain/terrain_displays.html > > which is a very brief blurb on some experiments we performed several years > ago on terrain displays. Thanks very much for the reference. In fact, I'd already found it, and the information was part of what took me into this line of research. My main concern with a 3D display is that lack of depth cues might cause pilots to have difficulty interpreting the proximity to terrain in a perspective display. My idea is to extend your research ideas, and to add colour-coding of the terrain threat based on some (yet to be defined) hazard index computed in real-time, incorporating the aircraft's energy state as well as terrain proximity. Hopefully, this would also alert the pilot to descent into flat terrain. At the same time, by adding a projected flight path, I hope to be able to convey autopilot vertical mode awareness on the same display, another topic which I see you've addressed. Best regards, Mark. From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:44 From: "Mark A. Brown" Subject: Re: Re[2]: New ground proximity warning. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Re terrain matching methods, there is another method which can be employed in addition to simple linear profile matching to improve accuracy, and that is terrain type matching. The strength of the returned radar signal depends on the type of surface over which you're flying -- woods, open fields, concrete jungle, water etc. This information can also be used for navigation to supplement terprom, provided that you have suitable information in the database. Of course, cruise missiles don't just use terrain matching but also have inertial guidance systems. IRSs tend to drift after a while, however, so a terrain referenced system can be used to improve the nav system accuracy. It doesn't matter if your terrain profile is slightly innacurate, as the system can "dead-reckon" on IRS until it finds a reasonable match. For CFIT, I suggest that the terrain model doesn't have to be all that accurate, so long as it is a "convex hull" for the real terrain (i.e. the bounding polygon surface encloses the real surface completely). After all, you're not using it for high-accuracy navigation but merely to avoid flying into the ground. Surface features like gullies and ravines, which are largely irrelevant, can be smoothed out of the model safely, giving great benefits for storage. Mark. From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:44 From: Grant Tudor Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Adacel Pty Ltd I haven't really been following this thread, but I thought I would add this bit of information. When the first 777 simulators were being made, they utilised the Boeing 777 software, but on different hardware (no need for full spec equipment). Guess what - they found bugs in the code that Boeing were not aware of (by all accounts very minor bugs but still bugs). Regards, Grant Tudor From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:44 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: KAL shot down by USSR in 1978 (_not_ KAL 007) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zip News In article , hawaii@aloha.net says... > ... >Unlike the Air Force of today, the commercial airlines gave up on >navigators in the late 60's with the installation of electronic >navigation. > With the installation of triple Carousel IVs, the C-5 said farewell to navigators for general ops. brian whatcott Altus OK From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:44 From: "Carl Peters, M.D." Subject: Re: Cargo door theory TWA 800 and others References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc > simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) wrote: > >My goodness! So an airspeed increase caused the cargo door to blow out. >Extraordinary. This theory is only a little more ludicrous than the very >dangerous "empty centre wing tank" theory, you know - "All those vapours >in an empty tank are more dangerous than a full tank."**************** The fact that vapors are more dangerous is not just a theory - anyone in fire protection can attest to this fact. I see it as a physician in certain ER injuries. This is part of high school level Physics. You are invited to test this on a warm day with a sealed near empty can of gasoline vs. a full one - tell us which one blew your fingers off. Carl Peters From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:44 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: Could TWA800 really have happened this way? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca M Carling wrote: > The recovered material shows that the fuel tank exploded, and the source of > the explosion was within the tank. While it is evident that the centre fuel tank did explode (and that the 747 fell off the sky for that matter), I have not heard anything which stated categarotically that the event began INSIDE the centre fuel tank. What evidence is there that the whole event started inside the tank as opposed to the tank exploding as a result of something happening just outside the tank ? I am curious as to what sort of forensic evidence would lead the investigators to rule out an explosion which began outside the tank. From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:45 From: cjardine@wctc.net (Chris Jardine) Subject: Re: Could TWA800 really have happened this way? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Wood County Telephone Company cjardine@wctc.net (Chris Jardine) wrote: Just a quick followup on some of the comments made here. 1) Considering the fact that jet fuel is "Basically!" similiar to diesel fuel. My brother is a diesel mechanic who said that they weld on fuel tanks that are full, half full, near empty, and empty. They don't have to worry about explosions due to the high ignition temperature of this type of fuel. I wonder whether static electricity would have the heat potential to ignite a fire in a fuel tank. ????? 2) I haven't seen any authoratative discussion of the ability of this type of fuel to cause catastrophic failure of the structure of an aircraft at the rate required to see what happened here. I've seen the results of a number of jet fuel 'explosions/fires' like the KC-135 at Mitchell field in Milwaukee a few years back. This aircraft basically burned to the ground. It did not come apart. There are other examples of the same phenomenon. (sp?) I also realize that like some have mentioned that jet fuel has more energy potential than even high-octane fuel. The problem here is in the way that jet fuel burns under almost all conditions. It burns extremely hot, but, fairly slowly. That's why (theoretically anyway) that jet fuel is safer than fuels like gasoline (high or low octane). 3) Having said all of this I realize that it is possible that I am wrong here and that the fuel alone could cause the type of damage seen here and that static may have triggered the event. In that case as a technician who has repaired many electronic devices including static protection devices on transmitters with tall towers I can tell you that all it would take to cause that kind of problem would be to mismatch metals (aluminum to damn near any other metal) with a potential source of current flow and you have corrosion. Then you loose the grounding bond designed into the equipment and all hell breaks loose at the worst possible moment. All it would take here is a momentary lapse in intelligence on the part of a technician doing a repair. You could put in a steel bolt that is not properly plated and in a short time you have corrosion. After that it's anybodies guess as to what is going to happen. Let's keep the discussion going here. Who knows, maybe something said here may make it to the people actually involved in the investigation and it may show them something they've overlooked. Whatever the cause is noone in his right mind wants it to repeat, so let's hope there is a definative answer soon! Chris Jardine http://www.wctc.net/~cjardine/ From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:45 From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: KAL shot down by USSR in 1978 (_not_ KAL 007) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington In article , Mark Anderson wrote: >Unlike the Air Force of today, the commercial airlines gave up on >navigators in the late 60's with the installation of electronic >navigation. I don't think any of the 707-era jets had a navigator's station. (The earlier Comet did.) Two-pilot on long-haul aircraft was pretty much an 80s thing, although it did start in the late 60s with the DC-9 and 737 class aircraft. (The DC-9 was two-pilot from the beginning. The 737 was going to be, but ALPA put their foot down, even though the 737 was intended as competition for the DC-9, something that slowed early 737 sales. ALPA eventually relented, the engineer's station went, and the 737 could compete head-to-head with the DC-9.) -- 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 Jan 6 01:47:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:45 From: riffraff@eskimo.com (David R. Hendrickson) Subject: Re: TWA Flt800 - Boeing Comments on Fuel Tank? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Seattle - It's not Hell, but you can see it from here! In article , "Bilal Yousuf" wrote: > In article , Heath Smith > wrote: > > > Can anyone tell me what the latest comments are out of Boeing regaurding > > the NTSB suggestion that the main fuel tank was "possibly" ingnited by > > static electricity? > > > Boeing's position is that all sources of energy are desiged out of the fuel > system by way of proper grounding, jumper wires etc. I believe they are > right, but ground jumper wires and protective designs are never restored to > their proper factory conditions in service. > > We mechanics are just not that carefull. you really should speak for yourself. *I* am and most mechanics i know ARE that careful. granted, maintenance manual service limits are different from factory drawing limits, but they are FAA approved limits none-the-less. if the work you're doing isn't in limits then it should be fixed and if you're signing off work that's not in limits per approved documents, you're asking for trouble. i've seen people lose their jobs over things that might be considered trivial, but the FAA doesn't mess around when it comes to pencil whipping... please don't take this as a personal attack or a lecture. with all media attention these days on "maintenance personel" after an accident, i really hate being a "we mechanic" and we mechanics must be careful, do our jobs correctly and work "behind the scenes" as we always have. dave David R. Hendrickson riffraff@eskimo.com Making your life look better by comparison since 1967 From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:45 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Microwave Landing System - Present Status? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Well, first there were big fights with the Brit's over the standard. Then, the FAA screwed around for about 2 lifetimes before defaulting one of its prime contractors. Meanwhile the price/ac kept up a rate of climb that would make a X-15pusher green with envy ;-} --- I heard a cool million greenbacks per installation. There are a few ?privately financed? MLS approaches used by one carrier [A 135 into a ski resort comes to mind but I recall no specifics...] but that seems to be about it. GPS has come up so fast that MLS seems to be regarded as DOA; despite it being an ICAO standard. Sound a little like ISO vs TCP/IP ;-| -- 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....................................20915-1433 From kls Mon Jan 6 01:47:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Jan 97 01:47:45 From: "JG.Campbell" Subject: Re: Microwave Landing System - Present Status? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ulster JG.Campbell wrote: > [...] > Does anyone know of the status of the [Microwave Landing System] project? I have had two replies to say that the MLS project has been cancelled in favour of a (to be developed) GPS based system. Mike Friedman tells me that a prototype system was installed at Lebanon, New Hampshire. Bill Nash reckons that he read of its demise in AOPA Pilot magazine - web page http://www.aopa.org/, although, at a quick glance, that doesn't seem to offer back copies. Many thanks. Jon Campbell. -- Jonathan G. Campbell, ISC/ISE, University of Ulster, Magee College, Derry, BT48 7JL, Northern Ireland. tel +44 1504 375367, fax 370040. JG.Campbell@ulst.ac.uk http://www.iscm.ulst.ac.uk/~jon/ From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:16 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing offers 767-400ERX Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Boeing has officially begun offering the 767-400ERX for sale. (This does not mean Boeing has launched the new model. In general, Boeing only launches a plane after receiving at least one order, followed by approval of Boeing's board of directors.) [ http://www.boeing.com/news.release.970106.html ] Boeing to Offer New 767 Derivative SEATTLE, Wash., Jan. 6, 1997 -- In response to market interest, the Boeing Board of Directors has authorized the Commercial Airplane Group to offer a proposed 767-400ERX for sale to the world's airlines. A program go-ahead would depend on obtaining sufficient launch orders. The tentative target delivery date is the year 2000. The 767-400ERX is planned as a derivative of the 767, and would be an important new member of the Boeing family of airplanes sized between the 767-300 and the 777-200. The new derivative features a stretched fuselage; aerodynamic improvements, including additional wing span and winglets on the wing tip; increased takeoff weight capability; and an all new main landing gear. "This new 767-400ERX brings significant improvements in operating economics over airplanes offered by our competitors," said Ed Renouard, vice president and general manager of 747/767 Programs. "Its increased payload capability, intercontinental range, passenger comfort and commonality with other Boeing jetliners will represent great value in the marketplace." The 767-400ERX would provide: * 10- to 15-percent more seats than the 767-300 -- accommodating 245 passengers in a three-class configuration compared to 218 in the -300 version. The added seats reduce operating costs relative to the 767-300ER, which already offers airlines the lowest operating costs in its class; * Range capability (approximately 6,500 statute miles) to fly the majority of routes currently being served by the 767-300ER; * All the familiar passenger comforts of the popular 767 interior; and, * The same reliable engines, airframe systems, and the 757/767 flight crew type rating. "This commonality will ensure a virtually transparent addition to existing 767 fleets and minimal impact to existing 757 fleets," Renouard said. "The 767-400ERX will help airlines take advantage of intercontinental growth markets as well as replace older airplanes serving transcontinental routes." For photo and information ... [ http://www.boeing.com/bck_html/767400spec.html ] 767-400ERX Specifications 767-400ERX/-300ER -- Comparison of Basic Specifications 767-400ERX 767-300ER Wing Span 179 ft 3 in (54.6 m) 156 ft 1 in (47.6 m) Overall Length 201 ft 4 in (61.4 m) 180 ft 3 in (54.9 m) Fuselage Length 197 ft 2 in (60.1 m) 176 ft 1 in (53.7 m) Tail Height 55 ft 1 in (16.8 m) [1] 52 ft (15.8 m) Body Width 16.5 ft (5 m) Same Passengers 245 three-class 218 three-class 303 two-class 269 two-class Cargo Volume 4,905 cu ft (139 m3) 4,030 cu ft (114.2 m3) Engines (two) * Pratt & Whitney PW4000 * General Electric CF6-80C2 * Rolls-Royce RB211-524G/H Max rated thrust per engine is 50,000 lb to 62,000 lb Fuel 24,140 gal (91,400 l) 24,140 gal (91,400 l) Range (statute mi) 6,500 mi (10,460 km) 7,050 mi (11,380 km) Maximum Takeoff Weight 440,000 lb (199,580 kg) 412,000 lb (186,883 kg) [1] Increase in tail height is due to the increased length of the 767-400ERX landing gear (no increase in actual tail size). -- 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 Jan 7 07:20:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:17 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >I have flown on either an Ansett or an Australian Airlines 767 (I forget >which - it was in 1987) that had both an engineer's panel (albeit >truncated) *and* a living, breathing flight engineer. What gives? I've had a good look at the Ansett flighties panel, an a fat lot a good it is. The must be the most lightly worked flight engineers in the history of commercial aviation. The story I heard (and I have to admit it's a good one) was that it prevented a whole lot of legal action by the flight engineers of the time. I must admit, getting a special aeroplane just to appease flight engineers sounds a little ludicrous, but it's still a good story :-) Regards, -- Simon Craig --- Do you like old aircraft? Visit my Connie Page! From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:17 From: widgetboy1@aol.com (WidgetBoy1) Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Delta acknowleged today (Jan 6) that Boeing has offered the 767-400ERX with inital specs of a 20-foot fuselage extension over the 300ER and would seat 303 passengers. But, like Delta is, that's ALL they said. From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:18 From: Edward Hahn Subject: Re: Y2K - sources of info References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation Reply-To: ehahn@mitre.org S.L. wrote: > > Sorry if this has been discussed in the past, but is there any source > of information on to what extent the aviation industry might be > exposed to the Y2K issue? I was thinking in terms of ATC, onboard > systems, etc. > Actually, I was listening to an NPR report on the Year 2000 date encoding issue (i.e. Y2K) with my wife (we're both aviation engineers - I'm more avionics oriented and she's more ATC oriented); the "expert" mentioned that this might be an issue with safety critical systems, such as the ATC system or aircraft systems. We then did a quick mental check of potentially affected systems. To our knowledge, the ATC system shouldn't be impacted for a couple of reasons (ironically, they cover both extremes) 1) The existing, older ATC computers are so old that they don't have internal date encoding that includes the year; they were developed with only day-of-the-month encoding to reduce the amount of unneeded information occupying memory. The ATC system basically "re-invents" itself every day anyways; nothing is really stored longer than is necessary (i.e. more than a few days to make sure that there isn't an incident after the fact which may need some replaying of data.) (Actually, to clear up a fallacy, those ATC systems which deal with Flight Plans - like the Center Host Computer System - are late 70's vintage (solid state) computers, and do not typically have vacuum tubes. Some very old, unique equipment at some facilities may have vacuum tubes, but for the most part, the current ATC system is solid-state.) 2) The newer ATC computers which are under acquisition are actually new enough to have no problem with the Y2K problem. (Some of them, I believe, are current Sun products.) Similarly, aircraft avionics do not require the year to function - at most they need the day of the month to work properly. The only aircraft system which *might* need the year to function would be Flight Management System Navigation Databases, and this is mainly to ensure that the nav data used is the current data. However, from a recordkeeping and support standpoint, it is possible that airlines might need to upgrade their *ground* recordkeeping systems to avoid Y2K issues. These include maintenance scheduling systems, component status history data bases, reservations data bases, etc. However, these are not systems which are "flight critical" as that term is normally understood. The above analysis is not exhaustive, but I think is a reasonably fair estimate of the situation. ed From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:18 From: "Luc Van Bavel" francomedia qc ca for mail. Thanks!)> Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprynet News Service Peter Ashwood-Smith wrote in ... >I also find the lack of feedback in Airbus systems to be a >poor design choice. So much useful information can be obtained >by the feel of the controls the only reason I can think of for >eliminating it is weight/cost savings. Another reason is : since the feedback is artificial (such as in the 777), what about a feedback error? This said, I do not feel it is a problem from the pilot point of view. None of the FBW fighter aircraft have feedback (AFAIK), and from my very short experience in the F-16 it is absolutely not an issue. Actually, feedback on fbw aircraft is a source of loss of flying accuracy because the hand of the pilot facing a feedback on the controls induces a slight command which was performed by the fbw anyway. --Luc -- http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vanbavel/ Mikoyan Design Bureau - Lockheed F-16 - Jet Squalus - FEA and Composites From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:18 From: Christopher Davis Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Venus Equilateral Communications Company JFM> == Jean-Francois Mezei JFM> Airbus provides DIFFERENT feedback than Boeing does. Boeing simulates JFM> mechanical feedback on the controls while Airbus provides more JFM> complete information on its screens as well as audible feedback. Does Boeing leave out information on the screens? Is there no audible feedback in a Boeing-design cockpit? I find this unlikely. A good human interface design will use multiple methods to communicate information, allowing different situations (or different users) to be adapted for. JFM> You can gain much more USEFUL information from the displays which give JFM> you real and accurate measures, as opposed to "what you *feel* when you JFM> move the wheel". Let's say you're sitting in the cockpit during cruise, with the autopilot on, talking to the chief FA as your meals are being brought in. You're therefore not necessarily paying attention to the displays, but you do have one hand resting on the yoke. You notice the yoke beginning to tilt farther and farther to the right as the autopilot adjusts for something you hadn't noticed--like a slow loss of thrust on the #1 engine. JFM> The one area where there seem to be complaints is the throttle on Airbus JFM> not matching any changes made by the computer. Do pilots leave their JFM> hands on the throttle throughout the flight to notice if engine throttle JFM> is being changed by the computer ? Throughout the flight? Probably not. At some phases? Certainly. Is reaching for the throttle handles to check the current setting one method that they might use? Definitely, especially if they're busy looking out the window or at a different display. JFM> From my point of view, I have no problem on MS Flight simulator JFM> looking at the screen to see what my throttle is at and pressing JFM> certain keys to increase/decrease it to the levels I want. This way JFM> I keep my eyes on the main display. That'd be the same 14" or so main display that includes the "out the window" view? Pilots in real airplanes have a far wider range of things they need to be looking at. JFM> Perhaps this is how it is done on the Airbus with actual and precise JFM> throttle indication displayed on the pilots main screen Using a heads-up display? I doubt it. JFM> with the physical actuator acting like a glorified "+" and "-" JFM> keyboard keys to increase/decrease throttle till it gets to the JFM> desired value as displayed on the screen. If you crash in MS Flight Simulator you can just restart the program. That's a little easier to recover from than a real crash. From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:18 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) In article nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca writes: >Peter Ashwood-Smith wrote: >> I also find the lack of feedback in Airbus systems to be a >> poor design choice. So much useful information can be obtained >> by the feel of the controls the only reason I can think of for >> eliminating it is weight/cost savings. > >LACK OF FEEDBACK ????????? > >We've gone through this one before. This is utterly false. > >Airbus provides DIFFERENT feedback than Boeing does. Boeing simulates >mechanical feedback on the controls while Airbus provides more >complete information on its screens as well as audible feedback. You call that feedback. I call those "kludges." Audio alarms and annunciations are easily filtered out, and physical/tactile feedback (in moderation) is far superior to peering at a little 7.25" display and looking for the white dot which reflects whatever it is the airplane thinks it's doing. Assuming the white dot is shown in the current display mode, that is. Pilots get used to the Airbus approach. After a bunch of training, re- training. Many love it (some pilots love the DC-10, too, though, so pilot surveys are clearly not all they're cracked up to be :-)) It's absurd to claim, though, that there is *appropriate* feedback, given the fact that three (and perhaps alli [I don't count the A330 accident]) of the crashes involved sequences in which the crew *did not know what the properly functioning airplane was doing*. (and our dear friend Bernard Ziegler is apparently getting sued for "involuntary homicide" in his role in the design of the displays which allegedly contributed to the Strasbourg crash :-)) Apparently, many of the factors leading to the early spate of crashes have been fixed in both software and training, given the fact that we haven't seen another crash in a couple of years. This is obscene, yet another kludge, proof that "going your own way" and developing unique aircraft interfaces is not in the public interest. >You can gain much more USEFUL information from the displays which give >you real and accurate measures, as opposed to "what you *feel* when you >move the wheel". > >The one area where there seem to be complaints is the throttle on Airbus >not matching any changes made by the computer. Do pilots leave their >hands on the throttle throughout the flight to notice if engine throttle >is being changed by the computer ? > >>From my point of view, I have no problem on MS Flight simulator looking Aaaaah, the real problem raises its ugly head. You think flying an airliner (never mind an airplane) is like flying a personal computer. >at the screen to see what my throttle is at and pressing certain keys to Yeah, must be nice to get all the information you want, sitting in a comfy chair with less than 20 degrees of eye travel in your scan. Go out and rent a real simulator sometime and try to repeat that scan. You'll notice a few problems: it becomes REAL. You suddenly have to move your head. You have to look out the window. You have to monitor your copilot. You have to deal with tubulence and wind. You have to deal with air traffic control. You need to monitor your systems and deal with interruptions. Oh, yeah. Do that four days in a row, eight hours a day. Make sure your flights occur every 18 hours, so your circadian rhythms get disrupted, and you're dead tired. THEN talk to us about "appropriate feedback." Pilots don't need some dazzling spectacle of intellectually correct integration requiring weeks of training. They need something so pathetically simple that a child can fly it. If movable autothrottles are what turn pilots on, so be it. >increase/decrease it to the levels I want. This way I keep my eyes on >the main display. Perhaps this is how it is done on the Airbus with >actual and precise throttle indication displayed on the pilots main >screen with the physical actuator acting like a glorified "+" and "-" >keyboard keys to increase/decrease throttle till it gets to the desired >value as displayed on the screen. You really don't know, do you? -- 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 Jan 7 07:20:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:18 From: rado@pnc.com.au (Mark Radovich) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rado@pnc.com.au jfmezei wrote: >The one area where there seem to be complaints is the throttle on Airbus >not matching any changes made by the computer. Do pilots leave their >hands on the throttle throughout the flight to notice if engine throttle >is being changed by the computer ? No, but one's eyes can pick up thrust lever movment a lot quicker than seeing digits or pointers move on screens. >>From my point of view, I have no problem on MS Flight simulator looking >at the screen to see what my throttle is at and pressing certain keys to >increase/decrease it to the levels I want. Gee MS simulator is just like flying the real aeroplane....not. Is your arse on the line when you fly your simulator? From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:18 From: reiwa@p085.aone.net.au (Kieron Murphy) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: REIWA "Peter Ashwood-Smith" wrote: > One way to make the single CPU/single module system very >reliable is to properly isolate all tasks with fixed CPU bounds >on each task, fixed memory bounds etc. > I don't know what approach is taken with the 777 and Airbus >software but I sure as hell hope the modules are either physically >isolated (separate CPU/memory) or totally logically isoated with >fixed CPU/memory bounds. > Anybody know for sure what kind of architectures the Boeing >and Airbus systems use? Here's some info on the 777 FBW system - 3 GEC-Marconi Avionics primary fligh control computers Each computer has 3 different computing lanes and each lane has it's own processor, power supply and link to the 777's data bus. Each computer/lane read imputs from the stick checks itself and the other two counterparts and if all agree the command is sent to the actuator control electronics (ACE), if one doesn't agree it's overruled by the majority of lane's. Originally 3 programming teams where going to be used (as does Airbus) however this was abandoned as the advantages of seperate teams was being eroded due to similar logic cropped up in each team. The 777 is governed by 'speed stability' meaning the aircraft is trimmed to a particular speed and any alteration from this speed will cause a change in pitch to compensate. (The Airbus is governed to maintain pitch) If the computer suffer a total failure, the ACE's can be used to control the plane. If everything fails in the FBW system their is mechanical links to hydraulically controlled trims in the horizontal stabiliser and a cable driven spoiler on each wing. There, do you feel like flying on one now :) (not aimed at anyone in particular) Kieron From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:18 From: reiwa@p085.aone.net.au (Kieron Murphy) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: REIWA dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) wrote: >Bill Chivers (Bill@chivcons.demon.co.uk) wrote: >: >See, it's called redundancy. Most of the time there are at least 3, usually >: >4 or more, systems for each task. And on critical cases different software >: Whereas Airbus employ code written by different teams, and it could >: therefore be argued that the chances of total failure are less, because >: a combination of inputs which will simultaneously crash *different* sets >: of software should be vanishingly unlikely. >: The counter argument is that different software teams still come from >: the same industry, with the same way of thinking, working from the same >: specification, and are therefore likely to make similar mistakes. > This subject has been discussed on comp.software.engineering, among >other places, and while there is not unanimity, the general feeling in >the software profession is that the effort is better spent in making one >program as good as possible than in making several different versions, >i.e., for a given number of labor hours or dollars, the most reliable >software results from making one "version" of the software as good as >possible. This is the path Boeing took, concentrating on getting the specs right in the first place as well. Kieron From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:19 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >The one area where there seem to be complaints is the throttle on Airbus >not matching any changes made by the computer. Do pilots leave their >hands on the throttle throughout the flight to notice if engine throttle >is being changed by the computer ? Most probably not (especially when in autothrottle), but it is quite visible and audible when the throttle levers are moving. Regards, -- Simon Craig --- If it's not Boeing, then I'm not going! From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:19 From: Jean-Francois Bosc Subject: Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > > (I'm wondering why it is that side sticks are OK in fighters and > >terrifying in airliners?) > > One might just as reasonably wonder why fighters don't have galleys > and sleeper seats. > > As noted here *many* times before, airliners tend not to have ejection > seats. Airliners also tend not to pull high G forces in their regular > flight envelope, so the arm support advantages offered by a side-stick > are of no consequence. Which certainly doesn't justify why side-stick on commercial aircraft should be a bad thing, not even why it should be useless ... JF From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:19 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re[4]: TWA Flight 800 accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >"Peter Mchugh" writes: >>>...the only thing you'll see out the front is blue sky or stars... >> >>Or perhaps other airplanes...what a novel idea? > >No, not novel, just an idea whose time has gone. See and be seen has been >tried for 93 years now and its major inadequacies are among the best >documented research in civil aviation. Only a regulator with his head in >the sand (or the office filing cabinet) keeps on thinking (hoping?) that >it has any value outside the circuit area - and it's not that good there. > >It's a legal concept that has no foundation in the real world. If you >have some time and an open mind, try the NTSB's publications on the concept >of see-and-be-seen. They're part of the reports on the last few mid-airs. And the terminology is "see and avoid" not "see and be seen" and still the basis for separation in the NAS...In addition to the NTSB work in this area one would want to carefully review near mid air collision reports and ASRS reports of near misses to discover the remaining value of using the windows for more than just a light source...and yes, thank goodness for TCAS...it too is a useful tool. BTW, as Cant pointed out, we have 93 years of experience with the success of using several avoidance strategies, including see and avoid, together to keep us apart (in flight). The number of midairs and NMAC demonstrate that... From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:19 From: wen@infi.net (W.E. Nichols) Subject: Re: Could TWA800 really have happened this way? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: wen@infi.net cjardine@wctc.net (Chris Jardine) wrote: +cjardine@wctc.net (Chris Jardine) wrote: + +Just a quick followup on some of the comments made here. + +1) Considering the fact that jet fuel is "Basically!" similiar to +diesel fuel. My brother is a diesel mechanic who said that they weld +on fuel tanks that are full, half full, near empty, and empty. They +don't have to worry about explosions due to the high ignition +temperature of this type of fuel. I wonder whether static electricity +would have the heat potential to ignite a fire in a fuel tank. ????? This is blatantly wrong. Jet A fuel has a flash point of 140 degrees Farhenient. The auto ignition temperature is not much higher that the 140 degrees either. Need I say more. +2) I haven't seen any authoratative discussion of the ability of this +type of fuel to cause catastrophic failure of the structure of an +aircraft at the rate required to see what happened here. Probably a discussion on this subject is not necessary. I guesstimate there was 1300+ cubic feet of fuel vapor in the CL tank. From various reports, the fuel temp was 115 degrees F. With the right amount of "spark" there is sufficient energy to cause significant damage. 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 Tue Jan 7 07:20:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:19 From: m@ml.com (M Carling) Subject: Re: Could TWA800 really have happened this way? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch jfmezei wrote: >M Carling wrote: >> The recovered material shows that the fuel tank exploded, and the source of >> the explosion was within the tank. > >While it is evident that the centre fuel tank did explode (and that the >747 fell off the sky for that matter), I have not heard anything which >stated categarotically that the event began INSIDE the centre fuel tank. NTSB has stated this in press conferences, as reported by www.cnn.com and others. >What evidence is there that the whole event started inside the tank as >opposed to the tank exploding as a result of something happening just >outside the tank ? NTSB hasn't (AFAIK) been specific yet about this. >I am curious as to what sort of forensic evidence would lead the >investigators to rule out an explosion which began outside the tank. The shape of the recovered pieces, the scoring or lack thereof on either side of pieces, the details of the separations between pieces, etc. M Carling From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:19 From: jveen@tincan.tincan.org (John van Veen) Subject: Re: Could TWA800 really have happened this way? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Inland Northwest Community Access Network For what it is worth. While in the Air Force I recall using JP-4 as lighter fluid in my cigarette lighter. It was as easy to ignite with flints as regular lighter fluid. I have never tried gasoline as lighter fluid. John From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:19 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: TWA Flt800 - Boeing Comments on Fuel Tank? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >> We mechanics are just not that carefull. > >you really should speak for yourself. *I* am and most mechanics i know ARE >that careful. > >granted, maintenance manual service limits are different from factory >drawing limits, but they are FAA approved limits none-the-less. if the >work you're doing isn't in limits then it should be fixed and if you're >signing off work that's not in limits per approved documents, you're asking >for trouble. i've seen people lose their jobs over things that might be >considered trivial, but the FAA doesn't mess around when it comes to pencil >whipping... > >please don't take this as a personal attack or a lecture. with all media >attention these days on "maintenance personel" after an accident, i really >hate being a "we mechanic" and we mechanics must be careful, do our jobs >correctly and work "behind the scenes" as we always have. Here, here. A mechanic is as carefull as he wants to be. If one mechanic choses not to be careful, then he is representing only himself, not every other mechanic! Regards, -- Simon Craig --- Do you like old aircraft? Visit my Connie Page! From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:19 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Cargo door theory TWA 800 and others References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia In article , "Carl Peters, M.D." wrote: >> simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) wrote: >> >>My goodness! So an airspeed increase caused the cargo door to blow out. >>Extraordinary. This theory is only a little more ludicrous than the very >>dangerous "empty centre wing tank" theory, you know - "All those vapours >>in an empty tank are more dangerous than a full tank."**************** > >The fact that vapors are more dangerous is not just a theory - anyone in >fire protection can attest to this fact. I see it as a physician in certain >ER injuries. This is part of high school level Physics. You are invited to >test this on a warm day with a sealed near empty can of gasoline vs. a full >one - tell us which one blew your fingers off. Thanks for the cordial invitation :-) Luckily I do not have the pleasure of working on aircraft that use gasoline in their fuel tanks. What I was referring to is this new "phobia" about all these aeroplanes that are flying around with empty centre wing tanks. I work at an area where every a/c has an empty centre wing tank (except in uncommon situations such as leak testing of the tank) and I haven't seen one spontaneously explode and blow the front half of the aircraft off yet. I'd like to see that! Regards, -- Simon Craig --- If it's not Boeing, then I'm not going! From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:19 From: "Peter Ashwood-Smith" Subject: Re: Re[2]: TWA Flight 800 accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada >No, not novel, just an idea whose time has gone. See and be seen has been >tried for 93 years now and its major inadequacies are among the best >documented research in civil aviation. Only a regulator with his head in >the sand (or the office filing cabinet) keeps on thinking (hoping?) that >it has any value outside the circuit area - and it's not that good there. Tell me about it. I remember many years ago flying into Seattle in a small Mooney. Caught a glimse out of the corner of my eye and saw a Shrike rocket over me about 100 feet higher. It was one of those sunny hazy pacific northwest days and there was no way either of us would have had a chance of seeing the other. Cheers, Peter -- Peter Ashwood-Smith | Email: petera@nortel.ca Northern Telecom | Work#: (613) 763-4534 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Home#: (819) 595-9032 From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:20 From: rjn@csn.net (Robert J. Niland) Subject: Re: Re[2]: TWA Flight 800 accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SuperNet Inc. +1.303.296.8202 Denver Colorado Peter Mchugh (PMCHUGH@mail.hq.faa.gov) wrote: > >...the only thing you'll see out the front is blue sky or stars... > Or perhaps other airplanes...what a novel idea? Another aircraft on a collision course with yours is one of the hardest objects to locate in what you see out the window. This is particularly true if it's in straight and flight, because the geometry of the situation is such that that a/c will not move relative to your window, and is thus indistinguishable from a speck of dirt until it's rather late. Regards, 1001-A East Harmony Road Bob Niland Suite 503 Internet: rjn@sni.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 Tue Jan 7 07:20:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:20 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: KAL shot down by USSR in 1978 (_not_ KAL 007) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) writes: > >In article , hawaii@aloha.net >says... >> >... >>Unlike the Air Force of today, the commercial airlines gave up on >>navigators in the late 60's with the installation of electronic >>navigation. >> Most of the supplemental carriers had navigators up until the early 70's. Lou. From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:20 From: j.s.harris@worldnet.att.net (Joel S. Harris) Subject: Re: propellor design References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: State of Tennessee pmacdou367@aol.com (PMacdou367) wrote: >Can anyone explain the design differences between the Hamilton Satndard >propellors used on the C130 Hercules and the P-3 Orion which use faily >similar engines (T56-A-14/-15)? ie the P-3 uses rounded prop tips and the >C130 uses square prop tips, what are the reasons? Most C-130's and Electras (yeah, we still get a few L188s) that I see around here (BNA) are equipped with 4-blade Aeroproducts propellors. As an aside, up until about three years ago the TNANG 118th Tactical Airlift Wing had the USAF's oldest flying C-130 (an ancient A model with 3-blade Curtiss (I think) props.) Apparently the Navy, sometime during the production life of the P-3, must have changed prop suppliers to Ham Standard. On a related note, in a recent Airliners article on Reeve Aleutian Airways Electra operations mention was made about spare part supplies running out for rebuilding Aeroproducts props. They stated that it would be too expensive to convert to Ham Standards. Zantop at one time ran an Electra into here with Ham Standards, so evidently someone has a STC for the conversion. From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:20 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: propellor design References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. PMacdou367 wrote: > > Can anyone explain the design differences between the Hamilton Satndard > propellors used on the C130 Hercules and the P-3 Orion which use faily > similar engines (T56-A-14/-15)? ie the P-3 uses rounded prop tips and the > C130 uses square prop tips, what are the reasons? This actually gets a little more interesting... The Lockheed Electra, which the P-3 is derived from, has different prop blades too. The reason for all these different props? - Different mission specifications. The C-130 is a military tactical/theatre airlifter, with a need for short field performance and a moderate cruising altitude. The P-3 cruises at altitude to its patrol station, but then goes down low. The Electra takes off, climbs to altitude and is then in cruise all day. A little trivia - the Electra and Convair 580 blades are identical. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jan 7 07:20:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:20 From: erikg3@aol.com (ERIKG3) Subject: Re: Help ID Piedmont Propeller Planes, Please References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >F-27's. Haven't seen those in the Pacific Northwest since Horizon Air >replaced the fleet with Dash 8's and SA-227's. Are there airlines in >North America which still operate this work horse or have many gone the >way of Arizona? I don't think any are flying today in NA. The F-50, the F-27's update, is quite popular in Europe. SAS, Icelandair and Luxair have them. I was "privledged" to fly one from Bergen to Copenhagen in 1993. -Erik From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:20 From: bjb@fof.kog.no (Bjorn Brattland) Subject: Re: Whatever happened to the Dash 7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kongsberg Gruppen ASA > From: rparpatt@uniserve.com (Thundercraft) > > Except for the harbour runway in downtown London, I don't think that > the STOL capabilities of the -7 were ever really utilized. The Norwegian airline Wideroe used the -7 in their route system consisting mainly of shorter (800m) runways. They certainly utilized those capabilities. Wideroe has recently switched to -8's. From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:20 From: "Leo Kok" Subject: Re: Whatever happened to the Dash 7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >If memory serves me correct there were only 100 -7's ever produced. Actually 113 were built and delivered. Serial #114 was not completed due to the incoming 1990 flammability requirements for which a new interior would have to be designed. Portions of the structure serve as test articles. -- Leo J.J. Kok Structures R&D Engineer, Structures Research & Development, de Havilland Inc. Tel: (416)375-3363 FAX: (416)375-4537 E-MAIL: lkok@dehavilland.ca From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:20 From: dave lawson <71202.1577@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Whatever happened to the Dash 7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dave Lawson Chris Nolan wrote: > > Does anyone know what has ever happend to the production run of the > DeHaviland Dash 7. Was the Dash 8 the replacement aircraft, and if so can > it mimic the Dash 7's noted short T/O and landing capabilities? I have recently (this past year) seen Continental Airlines (or one of their commuter partners) operating Dash 7 out of Denver. The short field performance under hot and high conditions still makes the Dash 7 the largest aircraft that can service many airfields in mountainous regions. Dave From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:20 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Whatever happened to the Dash 7 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Chris Nolan wrote: > > Does anyone know what has ever happend to the production run of the > DeHaviland Dash 7. Was the Dash 8 the replacement aircraft, and if so can > it mimic the Dash 7's noted short T/O and landing capabilities? Boeing shut down DHC-7 production in 1988, after they bought de Havilland. A total of 111 airframes were produced. The DHC-8 is a smaller aircraft and it doesn't have the STOL performance of the -7. Currently, the hot customer for used -7s is the US Army, which is converting them into recon aircraft for use in Korea. They are also talking about reengining them with LHTEC T-800s. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jan 7 07:20:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:21 From: erikg3@aol.com (ERIKG3) Subject: Avon STOLport(was Re: Whatever happened to the Dash 7) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Except for the harbour runway in downtown London, I don't think that the >STOL >capabilities of the -7 were ever really utilized. I think the true test of the Dash 7 was the old STOLport at Avon, near Vail Colorado. And its a pity it is gone, because it was a lot closer to Vail and Beaver Creek than EGE Eagle County Airport is today. Does anyone know why this airport was closed? The land had not been developed the last time I was up there. Landing at ZBV(?) must have taken some skill. I'm sorry I never took the chance to fly Rocky Mountain Airways (Scareways) from Stapleton. -Erik From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:21 From: s_odle@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Engine noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. On 06 Jan 97 01:41:44 , lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) wrote: >In article , "Dave & RuthAnne >Clickner" wrote: > >>Stage 2 or 3 is based on the weight of the aircraft and the noise level. A >>767 can make a lot of noise and be stage 3 while a 727 can make less and be >>stage 2. And yes there is a very large difference in the noise levels of >>stage 2 and stage 3 for a single aircraft type. > >I was quite surprised recently to discover that our (United's) older >747-100's and 200's, which are Stage 2, get classified Stage 3 when flying >red-eye from HNL to SFO, apparently due to a pre-dawn noise requirement at >SFO. I've been unable to determine if the "modification" is anything more >than placing a placard in the flight deck that in essence says "this is a >Stage 3 airplane". Perhaps there's also a largely irrelevant maximum >take-off weight reduction - irrelevant due to the relatively short flight >and resulting fuel on board as I've never been aware of a 747 off HNL to >the West Coast being wwight restricted (unlike the DC-10-10's). I do not know who "classifies" them as this but it is in violation of FAR 36 in several ways. 1. Once an aircraft is Stage 3 it is not permissable for it to ever go backward and be a Stage 2 aircraft again. 2. The aircraft's "Stage" is that defined in the FAA Approved Flight Manual. The only way for it to change is to get a FAA Approved revision to the AFM. If the AFM says nothing it is a Stage 1 aircraft. 3. As for the gross weight, this is the maximum allowable takeoff weight as defined in the limitations section of the AFM. This weight may be lower than the Structure of the aircraft is capable of, simply due to noise (FAR 25). Simply put, an airline, operator, etc., cannot change the "Stage" or the certificated noise levels of an aircraft at will. Current FAA requirements state that only the Aircraft Certification Offices can due approvals where noise (FAR 36) is involved. It cannot be done by a POI, as a Field Approval, by (I think) any DAS, etc. There can only be one set of Certifcated (approved) noise numbers for a given aircaft model and gross weight. Although, there are some aircraft that can be either Stage 2 or Stage 3. This is ussually based on how much the operator paid the manufacturer for the aircraft and it is controlled by serial number in the AFM, and only the Type Certificate holder (manufacturer usually) can revise the AFM. From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:21 From: jamesr@u.washington.edu (James Rymsza) Subject: Re: Engine noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington, Seattle In article , Darren Rhodes wrote: >On 27 Dec 96 13:32:25 , "Robert M. Sherry" >wrote: > >heard between a stage 2 and a stage 3 is probably because the stage 2 >aircraft was lighter and hence climbed faster away from you. > What about landing aircraft? Is the noise generated from landing aircraft used to determine classification as stage 2 or stage 3? Can an aircraft be stage 2 on accent and stage 3 on decent? -- James A. Rymsza (jamesr@u.washington.edu) Architect - UW Design Services ......... Box 352215 (work) 543-8200 x 325 (fax) 543-4117 .......... "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of."...Ogden Nash From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:21 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Naviguessers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Most, if not all, early overwater 707s and DC-8s had a nav station. Remember, this was before the days of INS when you had to use Loran and celestial to get over the pole. Jennings Heilig From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:21 From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <:> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington In article , Filip De Vos wrote: >Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: >: elimination of the flight engineer. Given the huge disparity in >: capital costs of a new 747-400F versus a 747-200, possibly converted >: from a full depreciated 747-200B, these advantages are not terribly >: compelling. > >The latter will not have a nose-door: so will not be able to load 20ft >containers. Loading/unloading will take longer too. Whether that is enough Why not? I thought the whole point of the 747's high cockpit was that the planes could be converted to freighters, complete with nose door, when they were obsoleted by the SST. I wouldn't have thought adding the nose door would have required significant changes beyond the door itself and the structure immediately surrounding the hinge mechanism. It's not as if it's a major load-bearing part of the aircraft. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:21 From: erikg3@aol.com (ERIKG3) Subject: Re: SAS ditching near LAX References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >In the 1960s JAL ditched a DC-8 successfully in the bay south of San >Francisco. Landing in fog, the crew made a navigational error and found >themselves in the bay instead of on the runway. Everyone got out a little >wet, but the plane was upright and in one piece. The pilot, shamed, later >committed suicide. This airplane was purchased by United and I was told that I was aboard it when I flew on a DC-8 from DEN to BOS in 1987. The F/A's called it Tokyo Rose. I enjoyed the flight immensely having been upgraded to First! -Erik From kls Tue Jan 7 07:20:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Jan 97 07:20:21 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: SAS ditching near LAX References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>In the 1960s JAL ditched a DC-8 successfully in the bay south of San >>Francisco. >This airplane was purchased by United and I was told that I was aboard it >when I flew on a DC-8 from DEN to BOS in 1987. The F/A's called it Tokyo >Rose. Don't believe everything you hear. I've been on many United DC-10s with had some peculiarity, which prompted the FAs to claim it was one of the five ex-Delta planes. It never was. The times when I really have been on one of the ex-Delta DC-10s, they've been undistinguished from any other United DC-10, and nobody knew their true history. In the case of the plane you were on, by 1987, the only DC-8s United was still flying were the DC-8-71s. One (N8177U) was acquired from JAL in 1977, at which time it was still a DC-8-61. JAL had initially leased the plane (JA8057) from Eastern in 1970, and purchased it in 1975. I don't know the identity of the aircraft which ditched, nor do I know the exact date of the event, but if it did happen in the 1960s, it was not the plane which went on to United, and since all of United's other DC-8-71s were acquired new from Douglas, the one you were on could not have been the one which JAL ditched. BTW, in 1988, I was on a United DC-8-71 that was somewhat strange, with an extra door on the left side at the back of First Class as I recall. My log lists it as N8077U, but at the time I was unaware of N8177U. Since I learned about the ex-JAL plane, I've always wondered if that was actually the plane I was on. Do any United old-timers know this plane, and know if it had a different door configuration from United's other DC-8-71s? -- 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 news Sat Jan 4 02:57:31 1997 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.idt.net!cdc2.cdc.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!news From: csta@mail.idt.net Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 03:30:39 GMT Organization: Cargo Shipping Transportation Analysts Sender: MTA-IC Moderator Approved: aircargo@concentric.net Message-ID: <32cdce0a.13446979@news.concentric.net> References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... > >>> For many interesting cargo routes, however, it's range isn't enough more >>> to eliminate fuel stops. I think SFO-NRT was an example. Both planes >>> need a fuel stop, usually at ANC. The fact that the -400F could fly a >>> greater percentage of the flight before stopping is neither interesting >>> nor useful. > >>Are you considering only transpac routes? There are many others in the >>world where the extra range of the 400F pays off very well. > >I said many routes, as that's what was said in the article I referred >to (probably in AW&ST, though I still haven't found it). > >AW&ST lists cargo capacity of the 747-200F as 245,300 lbs, with the >-400F only a little (9.4%) more at 268,300 lbs. Their range numbers >do not appear to be credible (4,080 miles for the -200F, 3,165 miles >for the -400F) but that may be comparing max range for the -200F to >full load range for the -400F. > >Here's what Boeing has to say about the 747-400F on www.boeing.com: > > Weights and Ranges (carrying 124 tons of payload) > > Max TO weight Range > 800,000 lbs 3,200 nm > 833,000 lbs 3,760 nm > 850,000 lbs 4,050 nm > 875,000 lbs 4,450 nm > >Compared to the -200F, Boeing says > > The -400 Freighter can carry 124 tons (113,000 kg) of cargo more than > 4,400 nautical miles. An additional 26 tons of payload or 1,200 nautical > mile range is possible compared to Boeing's 747-200 Freighter. > >If I'm reading that correctly, it sounds like a -200F can carry 98 >tons 4,450 nm, or 124 tons 3,250 nm. > >SFO-NRT is 4,452 nm, beyond the range of either model. Only by a very >small margin for the highest MGTOW -400F, but ditching off the Golden >Gate or in Tokyo Bay doesn't win any points. :-) Since both must make >a fuel stop, the -400F's range advantage is of no consequence. It can >carry a higher payload, but the segment distance is such that the -200F >payload is not substantially reduced by the need for a heavy fuel load. > I would like to add my 2 cents 1st both the 200 and 400F have the range ability to get to NRT directly from SFO but the ACL (Aircraft Cargo Load) would have to be reduced in order to add the additional fuel . In the example using 4452nm SFO/NRT : The 747-200F would have to reduce payload to approx 95 tons inoder to take on the additional fuel to make the safe trip to NRT The 747-400F would have to reduce payload to approx 108 tons inorder to take on the additional fuel needed to make the direct flight to NRT But when you talk about MGTOW there are other conditions that come into play. MLW ( Maximum Allowable Landing Weight) OEW (Operating Empty Weight) ZFW (Zero Fuel Weight) The OEW becomes important especially when dealing with passenger conversions to a freighter A/C. Because some items can not be removed (ex Passenger Windows) the OEW is higher than even the manufacturered 747-200F. An increased OEW has a direct impact on ACL in many cases reducing the optimum cargo load weight to 95,000-100,000kg for carriage at 3200nm. Weather conditions as you know also plays an important role in reducing ACL. Aircrafts flying into ANC during the winter months many times have to reduce ACL to stay within Field Limits (MLW) (MTOW) Ironically the cargo mix today, (with the exception of Winter Months) has aircraft volume out before weight out. Meaning that the internal cubic capcity is full yet the weight capcity has not been reached. Therefore the increased Volume cpacity of 1 M/d POS and 2 Ld-3 positions must also be considered when comparing the 400F to the older 200F. Note 747-200F is no longer manufacutured so only conversions of passenger a/c and purchaces of used a/c remain however for new aircraft the 400F is the best long range capcity aircraft arounf in my humble opinion. Robert Caton President CSTA Cargo Shipping Transportation Analysts csta@mail.idt.net From news Tue Jan 7 01:00:44 1997 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tezcat!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: hrose@rocza.kei.com (Helen Trillian Rose) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Boeing launches 767-400ERX Date: 7 Jan 1997 00:36:03 GMT Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Sender: hrose@rocza.kei.com Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5as5pj$ekg@kragar.kei.com> Boeing announced today (6 January 1997) that the Boeing Board of Directors has authorized Boeing Commercial Airplane Group to offer the 767-400ERX for sale. Tentative delivery date is 2000. See full Boeing press release at: http://www.boeing.com/news.release.970106.html Among the tidbits: * 245 passengers in 3-class, 300 passengers in 2-class * Same flight crew type rating (in other words, no FBW). * Three engine choices (PW4000, CF6-80C2, RR RB211-524G/H). --Helen From news Thu Jan 9 06:41:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!rdd From: "JG.Campbell" Subject: Microwave Landing System - Present Status? Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom21.netcom.com Organization: University of Ulster Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 05:26:15 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Back in 1976-77, when working for the Plessey Company, we did a lot of simulation and feasibility work for the British CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) on a standard for a microwave landing system. The US (FAA, Bendix and Hazeltine) had proposed a time-reference scanning beam system (TRSB) whilst CAA took the side of a Doppler scanning system (proposed by a British company STL); eventually ICAO adopted the US system. Does anyone know of the status of MLS? Waiting for the fog to clear >From London-Heathrow a few weeks ago, the ICAO term 'all-weather-operations', which sadly it wasn't, returned to me. Also, anyone know of the fate of Hazeltine & Bendix -- I assume swallowed up in mergers? Best regards, Jon Campbell -- Jonathan G. Campbell, ISC/ISE, University of Ulster, Magee College, Derry, BT48 7JL, Northern Ireland. tel +44 1504 375367, fax 370040. JG.Campbell@ulst.ac.uk http://www.iscm.ulst.ac.uk/~jon/ From news Fri Jan 10 05:56:23 1997 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!news.texas.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!news From: aircargo@concentric.net Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Aviation Fuel Excise Tax Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 04:21:00 GMT Organization: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Sender: MTA-IC Moderator Approved: aircargo@concentric.net Message-ID: <32efc1d5.14496173@news.concentric.net> For the second year, the federal excise tax on aviation fuels has expired. This is _not_ the tax on tickets discussed in an earlier post and only applies to Jet A and Avgas fuel. As a small air carrier as well as director for a medium-volume FBO, I see the expiration on a number of fronts: As an air carrier, despite any grandiose plans big brother may have for my tax $, I see the 15.5 cents/gallon for avgas and 18.5 cents/gallon for Jet A as a major cost savings to my operations. As an FBO, I can either pass the savings on (as I did last year) to my base customers, ramp customers, both, or neither. This will depend on the market practices of my peers in this region as well as the expedience of congress to reinstate the tax. Although last year it was not reimplemented until fall, it is widely expected that this year change will come much sooner. The base price for Jet has risen 15 cents in 1996 and I've watched Avgas rise 10 cents as well...and this is aside from any monkeying with the excise tax. A great deal of our FBO activity is with the scheduled airlines as well as Mobile Aerospace and Engineering - a heavy maintenance facility here in Mobile, Alabama. While my control is limited to flowage fees, I am keeping a watchful eye to my supplier. If last year is any indication as to the reaction of the airlines, it is obvious that they have a short memory. As soon as their base cost for fuel returns to its pre-December level then they will have gotten used to the savings - and start pushing for savings anywhere they think they have influence...namely flowage fees. Finally I see it as a follower of industry trends and moderator of this newsgroup. I remember too well the increased cost of up to 10 cents/lb. for forwarders on cargo in the form of a "fuel tax". I can't help but feel that a savings - even temporarily - of 18.5 cents/gallon to the major carriers should be passed on to the forwarders. perhaps in the form of relief from the airline's self imposed fuel tax. Ahhh, but would the forwarders pass it along to *their* customers? Don't get me wrong, I realize the bottom line for all of us is profit whether you are a shipper, forwarder, airline, or FBO. But UPS just raised their costs 3.6% and Fed-Ex claims that operating costs negate any savings they could pass on to their customers. (This is with a posted net profit of $90 million in 1996.) Perhaps my friends over at sci.aeronautics.airliners could do the fuel consumption calculations and project the potential savings in operational cost that would occur should this thing continue until August as it did last year. ___________________________________________ Michal Douglas Usenet Moderator for the Air Cargo Newsgroup misc.transport.air-industry.cargo http://www.concentric.net/~aircargo From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:30 From: "David E. Pearce Jr." Subject: Re: adaptative wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lockheed Martin -- Denver InterNetNews site felix wrote: > > who could give me some information about "adaptative wings", i.e wings or > winglets which profile is capable of being continuously deformed? > thanks in advance Check with NASA. I just threw out a couple of months ago a NASA report on a mission adaptive wing flown on a NASA G.D. F-111. I think Northrop did the design work, but I don't remember for sure. David Pearce From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:30 From: jetwayne@vonl.com Subject: Re: adaptative wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. "felix" wrote: >who could give me some information about "adaptative wings", i.e wings or >winglets which profile is capable of being continuously deformed? >thanks in advance Didn't the A4 have adaptive wings? From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:30 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: adaptative wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "felix" wrote: > who could give me some information about "adaptative wings", i.e wings or > winglets which profile is capable of being continuously deformed? > thanks in advance I know that back in the mid-1980s Boeing was working with NASA to develop an adaptive wing. They were using (I believe) an F-15 for this work at Edwards AFB. One of our producers went to Edwards several times in the course of documenting the project on film for Boeing and the government. I know the plane flew, but I have no idea of the final outcome of the experiment. The fact that we no longer seem to be involved with it implies that it didn't work very well, was too expensive, or ran up against some other obstacle. I know the mechanism to change the shape of the wing was very complicated. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:30 From: ostreger@aol.com (Ostreger) Subject: Misconceived Mammoth Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Why is the A3XX Omnibus not a V-tail mid-winger? This configuration, which is entirely feasible on a fly-by-wire mammoth, minimises both profile and interference drag, with enormous benefits all round - except to Boeing. So why isn't it being employed in this clean-sheet-of-paper design? I suspect the accountants believe it can be good enough as a low-winger, without risking passenger rejection of the unfamiliar configuration. For this they're willing to waste precious fossil fuels - each mid-winger would burn 10,000 tons less each year, saving appreciable contamination of the stratosphere - and cost our industry, and the travelling public, untold billions. We'd be travelling in sailing ships if they'd had this much power earlier. From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:30 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Misconceived Mammoth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Why is the A3XX Omnibus not a V-tail mid-winger? >This configuration, which is entirely feasible on a fly-by-wire mammoth, >minimises both profile and interference drag, with enormous benefits all >round - except to Boeing. So why isn't it being employed in this >clean-sheet-of-paper design? Some early versions of the A3XX proposal had twin vertical tails -- not like a Beechcraft Bonanza as the angle between them was not very great and there were still horizontal tails, which a Bonanza-style V-tail would not have. I assume the rationalle for doing this was to reduce tail height for hangers and perhaps to reduce the structural weight from what would be required by a single, enormous vertical tail. Anybody know more about it? The mid-wing configuration is a problem for ditching. Not insoluble since even high-wing designs have been used for relatively recent commercial aircraft -- the BAe 146 and the ATR family are two common examples, though neither is intended for long overwater flights. -- 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 Jan 13 18:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:31 From: pl20@pixie.co.za (Peter Little) Subject: Toilet sucks in child Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site On 7 Jan 1997, a South African Airways A320 [Flight SA327] flight from Johannesburg to Cape Town, the pilot had to decrease altitude in order for a 9 year old child to be pulled free from the toilet by a doctor that was on board after it had sucked her in. The child was later admitted to hospital with external and internal injuries to her private parts - which required surgery. This was reported today [8 Jan 1997] in The Natal Witness and on national television - SABC News. Two questions arise from this :- 1. How does an unaccompanied minor find herslf in such a position - especially in Business Class? 2. What was the reason to decrease altitude in order for the passenger to be freed from the toilet?? Are the toilets at a different pressure to that of the rest of the cabin? I would be grateful for any technical explanation of the incident. I suppose that the moral of the story is never go for a shit on an Airbus!!!! From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:31 From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP In article , Simon Craig wrote: >>I have flown on either an Ansett or an Australian Airlines 767 (I forget >>which - it was in 1987) that had both an engineer's panel (albeit >>truncated) *and* a living, breathing flight engineer. What gives? > >I've had a good look at the Ansett flighties panel, an a fat lot a good it >is. The must be the most lightly worked flight engineers in the history of >commercial aviation. > >The story I heard (and I have to admit it's a good one) was that it >prevented a whole lot of legal action by the flight engineers of the time. >I must admit, getting a special aeroplane just to appease flight engineers >sounds a little ludicrous, but it's still a good story :-) Ansett bought those five 767s in the early 1980s, which turned out to be a bit of a mistake. (Like in the US, passengers on domestic routes preferred high frequencies to larger aircraft, and as a consequence Ansett had trouble filling its 767s, as did the then TAA with its A300s). Therefore, Ansett didn't add to the fleet for about a decade. When it did eventually start buying more 767s, it came to a special deal with the union to have two man crews on the new 767s as well as get rid of the engineers on the old 767s. I believe some generous one off payments were made to the people in question. Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk "`I need every aluminum can you can find! And duct tape!" From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:31 From: graemec@ibm.net Subject: Re: Boeing 767-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >An article in this newsgroup in September, 1995, said Ansett was >converting its 767s to the standard flight deck... As I understand it, nope. Their -200s still have an F/E; their new -300s don't. Graeme Cant From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:31 From: matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) Subject: Re: Boeing launches 767-400ERX References: <5as5pj$ekg@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. In article <5as5pj$ekg@kragar.kei.com>, hrose@rocza.kei.com says... > >Boeing announced today (6 January 1997) that the Boeing Board of Directors >has authorized Boeing Commercial Airplane Group to offer the 767-400ERX >for sale. Tentative delivery date is 2000. The following information on the 767-400ERX is from the 6 January 1997 edition of Aviation Week and Space technology 767-400ERX 767-300ER wingspan 179ft 156 feet (6 foot tip extension and 8 foot winglet added on each side for -400ERX) Total length 201ft 180ft (132 inch fore plug in fuselage 121 inch aft plug) Tail height 55 ft 52ft (same tail, but landing gear is 3 feet longer) width 16.5ft same typical pax 245 (3 class) 218 (3 class) 303 (2 class) 269 (2 class) Cargo volume 4905 cf 4030 cf Engines CF6-80C2/RB211-524G/H or PW 4000 (same) Fuel capacity 24140 gal same (abput 90000 liters) Range 6500sm/10400km 7050sm/11300km MGTOW 440,000lbs/200000kg 412000/187,000kg Typical field length requirements at MGTOW goes up about 2000 feet, worst case is about 11,500, which suggests in high/hot conditions there is likely to be significant payload penalty. The 767-400ERX is claimed to offer comparable capacity to the A330-200 with a directoperating cost about 5% lower. In addition the the aircraft is being fitted with uprated Air Conditioning and APU,and in increase in onboard power generation to 120KVA from 90 KVA (I would assume from VSCF alternators). From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:31 From: Mike Hall Subject: 767 Tail-Bang on lift-off Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Organization? I wonder if anyone can enlighten me? Last Sunday we took AA136 (supposedly) LAX-LHR; the 'plane was a 767-300. When the pilot rotated the tail of the plane hit the runway; result was 2 hours going in circles dumping fuel and an (eventual) re-route via JFK as the crew had exceeded their hours - 19 hours in total.... Some questions: 1 Is such an event a common occurence? Who is likely to be to blame - I can only thnk of pilot error or shifting cargo. 2 If it was pilot error, what will happen? 3 Why do US airports not have transit lounges? We were marched off one plane to the replacement in groups of 10 (almost under armed guard) and forced to sit in it for almost 3 hours while fuel was unloaded and food and drink loaded. Thanks for any info Mike From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:31 From: phine@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Counterfeit parts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A customer of Pacific Bell Internet Services Reply-To: phine@pacbell.net In , "Brian A. Reynolds" writes: >New Zealand had (I think) two fatal helicopter crashes as a result of >recycled US Army blades (which had been removed from service due to >reaching their life limit). The blades had been improperly repaired (by >definition a life limited part cannot be restored so any repair was >improper but these repairs were really bad), then the blades repainted. Ditto an S-58 crash at Los Angeles Airways circa 1960. Forged component sources and histories were determined as the cause of failure. Paul From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:31 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Counterfeit parts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zip News Brian A. Reynolds wrote: > Counterfeit parts is a real and present danger which the FAA and other > Regulatory Agencies are working to stop. You must remember that there are several types of "bogus" parts. 1) Parts manufactured by a subcontractor to an OEM (Boeing, McD, etc.)and sold directly to a customer with out direct ship authority from the OEM or without a FAA-PMA are bogus. 2) Parts manufactured for the military are bogus 3) Parts received from a FAA-PMA manufacturer or OEM without the proper certs are bogus. All of the above are illegal to install on a 121 aircraft, even though they may be perfectly airworthy. The following are parts which pose a true and immediate threat to air safety. 4) Parts which have exceeded their life limit but have been refurbished and have reentered the system accompanied with forged certs. 5) Parts which are made from substandard material, or otherwise do not meet the design specs of the original but are fraudulantly marked and have forged certs. In the past the FAA has held the person installing the parts accountable for any bogus parts installed. The airlines have had to establish extensive receiving inspection organizations at great cost to act as gate keepers and prevent bogus parts from entering the system. It is a difficult task when dealing only with new OEM parts, it is almost impossible when one needs to purchase a part from a surplus vendor. The carrier which I work for is extreamly careful about which vendors it chooses to deal with and will only approve a vendor after a thorough on site audit of that vendors own quality systems. It remains an unfortuneate reality that the civil penalties faced by a parts broker are minimul compared to the profit potential of dealing in bogus parts. -Seth From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:31 From: Andrew Weir <100637.616@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Rear-facing seats References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Arch McKinlay wrote, interestingly among other things, the following: >rear-facing seats: >some trains and some camping vans have them. US Navy cargo planes use them >off aircraft carriers fro obvious reasons (I watched a colorful >off-the-cat ditch of a C-2 where it immediately flipped over, the rear >doors blew open and the crew chief popped out within seconds and he began >then yanking passengers out by their collars. They all got out with nary a >neck injury.) I've loved them ever since. Only Southwest airlines 737 >have rear facers nowadays. The RAF has rear-facers on its VC-10s, although not on its L1011s, I think because they bought them second-hand and didn't want to spend the money turning the seats around. Early Tridents, I believe, had some because they had some seat-rows facing each other. Does anybody know of any other civilian airlines apart from Southwest with rear-facing seats in commercial jets, or plans, yet to be fulfilled or abandoned, to install them? And how come Southwest has them? From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:31 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Rear-facing seats References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Does anybody know of any other civilian airlines apart from Southwest >with rear-facing seats in commercial jets, or plans, yet to be fulfilled >or abandoned, to install them? And how come Southwest has them? I don't know why Southwest has them, but I hear they won't have them on the 737-700s. I think it was some sort of certification issue. USAir used to have them for row 1 on at least some of their DC-9s -- I flew in one of those seats in 1985. It looks like they disappeared when USAir added an F class section. -- 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 Jan 13 18:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:32 From: Paul Michaels (Paul Michaels) Subject: DC-6 for Pollution Control Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Scottish Internet Supplier Reply-To: I have read recently that Air Atlantique is to introduce two DC-6 into pollution control alongside its DC-3s. I presume this is in the same role, ie. low level spraying. Does anyone know how well the DC-6 is suited to this role? I have heard that the DC-3 is thought to be the best aircraft for this by a considerable margin. This being to do with its speed, control, expense, reliability and even the dispersant properties of the prop. wash. What would be the rationale in introducing the DC-6? Paul Michaels, Aberdaugleddau (Milford Haven), Wales >In an attempt to slow down junkmailers, the return address in >the header is incorrect. Please use the one below: > Paul Michaels From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:32 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Static from Cross-feed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories jfmezei wrote: > So, if the airport does not supply forced air, wouldn't the aircraft at > least use ground electrical power to run its fans and airconditioners ? No, the on-board A/C units aren't electrically powered, with compressors and refrigerant (aka 'Freon') like a household or automotive unit. To vastly oversimplify, they operate by bleeding highly compressed, hot air from the engine compressors or APU, cooling this compressed air via heat exchangers, and then letting it expand to atmospheric pressure (and thus drastically cool) into the cabin. The air itself is the refrigerant, and this method requires that an engine or APU be running. It is much more cost-effective and lighter weight to do it this way, when such a tremendous amount of compressed air is readily available, but not overly efficient on the ground. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:32 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Static from Cross-feed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia In article , nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca wrote: >Bilal Yousuf wrote: >> B) The B747 can be ground conditioned, but if ground AC is not available the >> APU is used to drive the aircraft airconditioning system, which does create >> a lot of heat in the area fwd and under the wing. > >When a plane is at a gate, I assume those yellow/orange flexible pipes >are the ones used to supply air to the plane. But I would also assume >that electrical power is also supplied from the ground so that the >aircraft need not rely on its APU. Is this a correct assumption ? >So, if the airport does not supply forced air, wouldn't the aircraft at >least use ground electrical power to run its fans and airconditioners ? A/C can be supplied with external elec power, but this same APU can also supply full elec power. If the APU is supplying elec power, normal pack (air con) operation is possible. >Furthermore, I am somewhat puzzled at the though that the air >conditioners under the fuel tanks would have caused the tanks to heat up >so much. > >Where/how do air conditioning units on an aircraft dump their excess >heat ? >(at ground and during flight). Do they just dump in in the cargo hold ? A/C packs in the 747 use heat to produce cold air (may sound strange but true). The heat is transferred into energy to drive a turbine, thus the air that originally had the heat becomes very cold (all the energy is extracted). This basically means they do not really have "excess heat" to dump. They do use ambient air for some cooling and this can become quite hot on the ground. This is drawn in (ambient temperature) and then dumped overboard (a fair bit hotter than ambient) just aft of the a/conditioning pack. These packs are all found in the lower fuselage area underneath the centre wing section. I really wouldn't consider them a fire hazard. Regards, -- Simon Craig --- Do you like old aircraft? Visit my Connie Page! From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:32 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Static from Cross-feed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA > When a plane is at a gate, I assume those yellow/orange flexible pipes > are the ones used to supply air to the plane. But I would also assume > that electrical power is also supplied from the ground so that the > aircraft need not rely on its APU. Is this a correct assumption ? Both assumptions are correct. > So, if the airport does not supply forced air, wouldn't the aircraft at > least use ground electrical power to run its fans and airconditioners ? Fans, of course, run off of electicity, but the air conditioning is run off of hot pressurized bleed air from either the apu or engines. > Furthermore, I am somewhat puzzled at the though that the air > conditioners under the fuel tanks would have caused the tanks to heat up > so much. > Where/how do air conditioning units on an aircraft dump their excess > heat ? > (at ground and during flight). Do they just dump in in the cargo hold ? As mentioned previously hot bleed air runs the airconditioning. This hot bleed air is changed to cool conditioned air through aircycle machines and heat exchangers. The exhaust from the heat exchangers is dumped overboard on the ground and in the air. So, no, it does not dump into the cargo holds. The outlets for these heat exchanges are in different places on different aircraft. On a DC-9 they are on the upper aft fuselage, on an F-100 they are on the nose, on most other airliners they are on the belly. On all aircraft it can be said that they are close to wherever that particular airplains air conditioning packs are located since the heat exchangers and their outlets are part of the airco packs. In my experiance working on airliners, I have never heard it said that the hot air blown out of any airconditioning system heat exchanger has ever caused a fuel tank to heat up. Even on those aircraft where the airco packs are located in a compartment directly under and adjacent to a fuel tank I have never read a caution or warning about pack operation causing heating of the fuel. So, I too, would be skeptical if someone told me pack operation causesd significant warming of a fuel in a tank. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:32 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Static from Cross-feed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca wrote: > Bilal Yousuf wrote: > > B) The B747 can be ground conditioned, but if ground AC is not available the > > APU is used to drive the aircraft airconditioning system, which does create > > a lot of heat in the area fwd and under the wing. > > When a plane is at a gate, I assume those yellow/orange flexible pipes > are the ones used to supply air to the plane. But I would also assume > that electrical power is also supplied from the ground so that the > aircraft need not rely on its APU. Is this a correct assumption ? Not always. Actually, very few airports make it a practice to supply airplanes at the gate with power and air during a normal turnaround. Most airplanes continue to run their APUs. One airport that has vigorously adapted a program of supplying ground power and air is Zurich. I filmed there a couple of years ago for a Boeing/Airbus produced video on aviation and the environment. Zurich guarantees a hookup of ground power within 30 seconds of gate arrival and heated or cooled cabin air within two or three minutes of engine shutdown. The flip side of this is that any airline caught running an APU at the gates is fined. For this reason, the Russion-built Aeroflot jets that use Zurich have to park out on the ramp and they are fined at every visit as they cannot use the ground power and air supplied by the terminal. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce noise and pollution. I believe the same procedures are in effect at Amsterdam, and possibly other airports as well. But most airplanes at the gates at US airports during a normal short turnaround are running their APUs. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:32 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Gimli 767 nose gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , Kees de Lezenne Coulande <100121.1153@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > Mr Faure seems to have a rather strong opinion on the condition of the > "Gimli glider" nosewheel. I have a copy of the official Canadian > accident report (extensive quote from accident report) Well, I can't argue with the official report. I am puzzled, however, why we have all these photos here at Boeing (I'm looking at one now) that clearly show the 767 sitting with its nose off the ground and resting on one of the race track barriers. > P.S. Although I cannot claim to be floatplane pilot, I have flown some > circuits with a float-equipped Cessna 172 from lake Union in Seattle, > under the guidance of the old Kurtzer himself no less. I received my Single Engine Seaplane rating in the early 1980s from Lana Kurtzer, probably in the same 172 you flew in. He went out of business in the late 80s and passed away a few years ago. He was a unique individual, and a terrific pilot. I was instrument rated at the time and had spent many hours flying a C-206 in Hawaii, so I tended to refer to the panel a lot and change attitude with the trim. He couldn't stand that, so he would cover up every instrument on the panel except the tachometer and airspeed indicator and tell me that everything I needed to fly the airplane properly was visible out the windshield or could be felt through the bottom of the seat. If I even so much as reached for the trim wheel he yelled at me. He was right (VFR technique only...) C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:32 From: craig@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch) Subject: Safety by aircraft type Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A user of Pacific Internet This week's Economist has an interesting article on airline safety. There is a graph which compares "crashes per million departures" by type. You can see it at: http://www.economist.com/issue/11-01-97/wb5.gif Interesting that the 737, which seems to attract so much concern in these newsgroups, is rated as the best, or third best, depending on the model. This week's itinerary: SIN-NRT (SQ 747) NRT-BNE (NH 747) SYD-SIN (SQ 747) I think this is the first all Boeing week I've had for 6 months! Cheers, Craig From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:32 From: bizfixer@aol.com (Bizfixer) Subject: Re: SAS ditching near LAX References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com It was a JAL DC8-61 which ditched at SFO. Friends at JAL Purchasing used to joke that it was the excess weight of the galleys which I built for their -61s. An SAS DC8-? ditched offshore near of LAX around that time, but I don't recall them ditching at SFO, though there were 2 or 3 in a short period.. An SAS B-747 almost landed on the Hughes Aircraft runway one evening in the '70s, mistaking its lights for LAX. ATC caught it just in time! Hughes facility was being used - and adequate only - for helicopters; too short and much too soft for a 747. (It's about 4 miles north of LAX and roughly parallel to 25R.) Tokyo/Haneda - similar setup to SFO - had a series of accidents in the 60s which demonstrate an important moral: never fly with someone whose number is up! An Air Canada DC-8 hit the seawall and cartwheeled down the runway, killing all but 17. One guy who got out called his family to say he was OK. Next day, he got on the BOAC (B-707) flight to Delhi which broke up in turbulence midair over Mt. Fuji. (It was filmed by a Japanese hiker!) Now there's a guy whose number was up! And then there was the Saudi L-1011, . . . but that's enough for now. Fly with the right people - guess you're one of them. Ciao, Hokie bizfixer@aol.com From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:32 From: Sheena MacKenzie Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: University of Sheffield, UK Reply-To: S.MacKenzie@sheffield.ac.uk In sci.aeronautics.airliners matt weber wrote: : width, but because the seat pitch is so limited. Given the choice : between 2-5-2 seatings with say 34 inch pitch, and 2-4-2 seating with 31 : inch pitch, I suspect most people would take the legroom over the seat : width. I have to say that the legroom/width issue will depend entirely on the dimensions of the people you ask. I would much prefer the width as I have no problems with legroom, but find the width of seats very uncomfortable, in general. Maybe, this is a male/female thing as women do tend to have wider hips and shorter legs than their male counterparts. Sheena -- Sheena MacKenzie Email: S.MacKenzie@shef.ac.uk Department of Automatic Control Tel: +44 114 282 5236 & Systems Engineering University of Sheffield. From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:33 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk >I do agree that nine abrest and ten abreast are less ideal than eight >abreast when the flight is *full*. Airlines do hope every flight is >full, but most airlines can realistically fill their planes 60-70% full, >annually. Thus, for most flights, the dreadful middle seat of the 2-5-2 > configuration is not an issue. No. It is an issue to the poor sap who is in the centre seat and won't be a repeat customer. I can't see Boeing saying to airlines: `you'll only have 60-70% capacity, don't worry about that centre seat being occupied(!)' Tho I suppose this may become true after they lose all those initial centre seat customers. >According to Boeing, the standard economy >seat on the B747 and B777 is 1.5 inches wider than than the standard >economy seat on the A300/310/330/340. ^^^^^^^^ Oh? Nice of Boeing to skew the figures with all those short range 300s/310s especially when airline interiors are set by -airlines-. Ever been on a Tower Air 747? They seem to have lost that extra 1.5 inches. >Nevertheless, comfort is a very subjective thing. Also, some people will >believe what they are told to believe. Your last comment is unclear. -- Niels Sampath From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:33 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>According to Boeing, the standard economy >>seat on the B747 and B777 is 1.5 inches wider than than the standard >>economy seat on the A300/310/330/340. > ^^^^^^^^ >Oh? Nice of Boeing to skew the figures with all those short range 300s/310s American just started flying the A300-600 JFK-LHR. Few would consider that a short-range route. All of Delta's (ex-Pan Am) A310s were used for even longer trans-Atlantic routes. While they certainly don't have the range of a 747-400 or A340, the A300 and A310 are not exactly short-range aircraft in their latest forms. -- 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 Jan 13 18:35:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:33 From: Drew Jackson Subject: AA and UA DC-10's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Penn State University, Center for Academic Computing I am curious about American's and United's DC-10's that are still in service. How many does each airline now have in its operational fleet, and how long are they scheduled to stay? From kls Mon Jan 13 18:35:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jan 97 18:35:33 From: Andrew Weir <100637.616@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Interestingly enough the first 767 delivered with PW4000 is the Lauda >Air 767 that went down in Thailand a few years ago. To this day I >don't the official accident report has ever been published, although it >apparently isn't any secret what happened. What they don't want to >talk about is what didn't happen. Aircraft should never have crashed, >major major screwup in the cockpit. There was an obviously solution to >the problem, and to this day, no one has any idea why they didn't do >it. It takes some 23 minutes from first indication until the aircraft >augers in, so isn't as if they didn't have time. Whoa, there! "23 minutes"? I think you must be thinking of a different accident. The plane crashed 15 minutes after take-off when a thrust reverser deployed without command, leading to an in-flight break-up. While we are getting on the backs of dead pilots, let us remember that the 767 was certificated for recovery from such a situation. Investigators questioned this when they attempted to reproduce the plane's problems in the sim. So, new wind tunnel tests were performed and these showed that instead of a lift loss of 10 per cent resulting from thrust reverser deployment, giving plenty of chance of recovery, the real figure was 25 per cent. Boeing's own engineering simulator was reconfigured to include this data and Boeing's chief test pilot found that if corrective action were not taken within 4 to 6 seconds after the event, recovery was impossible. The recovery manoeuvres were not, however, part of normal airline training. Uncommanded thrust reverser deployment sounds to me like a "major major screw-up" -- but not by the unfortunate pilots. All PW4000-powered 767s were subject to ADs to correct the problem, which seems to have been due to an overlooked failure mode in the thrust-reverser's electronic controls. As an aside for the FBW debate, this accident could not have happened on an older model plane with mechanical controls for thrust reversal. From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:54 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) writes: >>I do agree that nine abrest and ten abreast are less ideal than eight >>abreast when the flight is *full*. Airlines do hope every flight is >>full, but most airlines can realistically fill their planes 60-70% full, >>annually. Thus, for most flights, the dreadful middle seat of the 2-5-2 >> configuration is not an issue. >No. It is an issue to the poor sap who is in the centre >seat and won't be a repeat customer. I can't see Boeing saying to >airlines: `you'll only have 60-70% capacity, don't worry about that >centre seat being occupied(!)' Tho I suppose this may become true >after they lose all those initial centre seat customers. It would be nice if it were true that people would avoid uncomfortable airplanes, but it just isn't. I asked a travel agent how often someone specified the type of plane when making travel plans (or even asking before they purchased tickets)... she said "maybe one person per *year*". From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:55 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry In article Niels Sampath (niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk) wrote: > >I do agree that nine abrest and ten abreast are less ideal than eight > >abreast when the flight is *full*. Airlines do hope every flight is > >full, but most airlines can realistically fill their planes 60-70% full, > >annually. Thus, for most flights, the dreadful middle seat of the 2-5-2 > > configuration is not an issue. > > No. It is an issue to the poor sap who is in the centre > seat and won't be a repeat customer. Don't forget 2-5-2 is not the only configuration available, there are 2-4-3 and 3-3-3. Yet, most of the airlines opt for 2-5-2. Also, in a full flight, an airline can assign most of the middle seats to passengers who are travelling with a party of three or more. Thus, the ones who sit in the middle may not feel as dreadful. >I can't see Boeing saying to > airlines: `you'll only have 60-70% capacity, don't worry about that > centre seat being occupied(!)' That's not the exact words Boeing uses, but it actually does use the fact that most of the flights are 60-70% full as one of its marketing "ploys". Go visit Boeing's homepage. I believe they say on a B747 flight with 60% seats filled, everyone will be sitting next to an empty seat. (To have an empty seat next to you on an Airbus widebody, the load will be at 50%. For the B777, it will be 55.6%.) > Tho I suppose this may become true > after they lose all those initial centre seat customers. > > >According to Boeing, the standard economy > >seat on the B747 and B777 is 1.5 inches wider than than the standard > >economy seat on the A300/310/330/340. > ^^^^^^^^ > Oh? Nice of Boeing to skew the figures with all those short range 300s/310s Tell me one manufacturer that doesn't "skew" the figures to sell its products. Boeing does it, so does Airbus. Nevertheless, as Karl pointed out, the A300-600R and A310 are hardly short-range airplanes. Many trans-Atlantic, Europe-Middle East/India, Europe-Africa, SE Asia-Japan flights are operated with the A300/310. > especially when airline interiors are set by -airlines-. Ever been on a > Tower Air 747? They seem to have lost that extra 1.5 inches. Seat pitch is a strong function of airlines. However, seat width is usually not. If you use a charter operation as your example, then you should really compare it with Airbus planes with nine-abreast seatings. Then, I believe Boeing's widebodies still have the advantage. Given the same seat pitch, I do find the wider economy seats on the B747 and the B777 are very desirable on a long flight. > > >Nevertheless, comfort is a very subjective thing. Also, some people will > >believe what they are told to believe. > > Your last comment is unclear. > Some people won't assimilate the information that are given to them. They are told Airbus's 2-4-2 economy configuration is more comfortable than Boeing's 2-5-2. They are also told Airbus's 2-2-2 business configuration is more comfortable than Boeing's 2-3-2. Some will accept these statements without even analyzing the information. That's what I meant by "some peple will believe what they are told to believe". IMHO, Airbus's claims are true only when the flight is more than 85-90% full. Otherwise, the wider seats should win. From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:55 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: AA and UA DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Drew Jackson wrote: > > I am curious about American's and United's DC-10's that are still in > service. How many does each airline now have in its operational fleet, > and how long are they scheduled to stay? Fedex has signed deals with both AA and UA where they will trade Stage III 727 hushkits for the DC-10s both airlines. Supposedly, the first UA DC-10 will be joining the Fedex fleet in the next couple of months. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:55 From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: AA and UA DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. In article , Drew Jackson wrote: >I am curious about American's and United's DC-10's that are still in >service. How many does each airline now have in its operational fleet, >and how long are they scheduled to stay? UA has about 25-30 DC-10-10's unretired although some are stored for short periods. Typically 20-24 in service at a time. All should be gone by the end of 2000. Also 8 DC-10-30's, 4 of which are being converted into freighters. 4 of them are technically freighters (-30F's) that have been converted to passenger planes but of the 4 being converted to freighters, only 1 is an original freighter. No idea as to retirement plans. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:55 From: kris Subject: B-777 ordered by.... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Air India is evaluating the 777, and Airbus for potential orders... From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:55 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Boeing launches 767-400ERX References: <5as5pj$ekg@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) writes: >The following information on the 767-400ERX is from the 6 January 1997 edition >of Aviation Week and Space technology >The 767-400ERX is claimed to offer comparable capacity to the A330-200 with a >directoperating cost about 5% lower. Is this figure from an independent analyst or from Boeing? I am not doubting it... but I would love to know if this is marketing hype or something calculated by the folks at AWST. Terry From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:55 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: stretch DC-8 landing gear Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Reading that the 767-400 will have to have raised main landing gear posts to avoid tail strikes on rotation makes me wonder: did Douglas do the same when they stretched the DC-8 to the -60 series? -- -Niels From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:56 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: 767 Tail-Bang on lift-off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site > Last Sunday we took AA136 (supposedly) LAX-LHR; the 'plane was a 767-300. > When the pilot rotated the tail of the plane hit the runway; > 1 Is such an event a common occurence? Who is likely to be to blame - I > can only thnk of pilot error or shifting cargo. No, this is not really common, but it does happen from time to time. The airplane has a striker on the bottom of the fuselage at the tail just for these instances. And yes the pilot probably over rotated. I happen to work AA tech service and am familiar with this particular incident. As it turned out the aircraft sustained no structural damage, the only damage was to the striker. > 2 If it was pilot error, what will happen? Nothing, despite the incovience to our passengers, the cost to the airline (substantial), and the damage to the aircraft (minor) this was basically a minor incident. > 3 Why do US airports not have transit lounges? I have no Comment on this one. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:56 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: 767 Tail-Bang on lift-off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 06:35 PM 1/13/97, you wrote: >Last Sunday we took AA136 (supposedly) LAX-LHR; the 'plane was a 767-300. >When the pilot rotated the tail of the plane hit the runway; result was 2 >hours going in circles dumping fuel and an (eventual) re-route via JFK as >the crew had exceeded their hours - 19 hours in total.... > >Some questions: > >1 Is such an event a common occurence? Who is likely to be to blame - I >can only thnk of pilot error or shifting cargo. ====Usually, this is the result of excessive rotation rate for liftoff. There are many factors which can contribute to the problem including improper trim setting, rotating at the wrong speed, or using excessive back pressure during rotation...not to forget CG variance from the data given to the pilot. >2 If it was pilot error, what will happen? =====This is not too uncommon, unfortunately. During a normal takeoff the tail frequently comes within 2 to 3 feet of the runway when all is done correctly. Pilot training concentrates on avoiding this but it still happens for a variety of reasons. I am not sure of what actions are taken against the pilot but I would not suspect anything excessive...it is similar to bumping into someone when driving your car. >3 Why do US airports not have transit lounges? We were marched off one >plane to the replacement in groups of 10 (almost under armed guard) and >forced to sit in it for almost 3 hours while fuel was unloaded and food >and drink loaded. =====You can thank all the terrorists for this! I wouldn't lose any sleep over this happening but it does cost the airline some bucks for repair. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-9455/4815 From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:56 From: ktl@crl.com (Kian-Tat Lim) Subject: Re: Misconceived Mammoth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Personal account, no affiliation implied I'm just an amateur plane enthusiast, but I've been led to believe that the major problem with mid-wing designs is the wing spar. It either passes through the center of the fuselage, intruding on valuable passenger or cargo space, or an extra-strong support structure is needed to go around the fuselage with a consequent weight penalty. Perhaps with modern materials this problem can be alleviated somewhat. -- Kian-Tat Lim, ktl@crl.com From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:56 From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: Misconceived Mammoth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of New South Wales Reply-To: tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au Ostreger wrote: > > Why is the A3XX Omnibus not a V-tail mid-winger? It could be because the main wing spar on a mid-winger would have to pass through the passenger cabin which is commercially unacceptable. Also a mid-wing A3XX may lose the ability to carry centre-wing tank fuel and would have its potential range reduced. Belly tanks could be used but these would adversely impact under-floor freight/baggage capacity. Tony Maddern From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:56 From: "Mark A. Brown" Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Some toilets operate by exploiting the pressure differential between the cabin and ambient to suck (or rather, push with cabin pressure) the waste matter into holding tanks when the flush lever is pressed. Reducing altitude would reduce the pressure differential enabling the trapped person to be freed. As I recall, a similar indicent has happened before on an aircraft equipped with a vacuum toilet. In this case, the passenger was reportedly a rather portly individual who formed a seal on the toilet when she sat on it. When she operated the toilet still sitting down, the pressure differential caused part of her intestine to be pulled out and protrude from her body. This was later fixed in hospital. I suspect similar injuries in the more recent case -- vaginal prolapse and the like. >I suppose that the moral of the story is never go for a shit on an >Airbus!!!! In fact its any aircraft with vacuum toilets (I think the previous indicent I mentioned was on a Boeing aircraft.) Mark A. Brown, STA Research Fellow National Aerospace Laboratory, Control System Division 7-44-1 Jindaijihigashi-machi, Chofu-shi, Tokyo 182, JAPAN From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:56 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In pl20@pixie.co.za (Peter Little) writes: > >On 7 Jan 1997, a South African Airways A320 [Flight SA327] flight >from Johannesburg to Cape Town, the pilot had to decrease altitude in >order for a 9 year old child to be pulled free from the toilet by a >doctor that was on board after it had sucked her in. The child was >later admitted to hospital with external and internal injuries to her >private parts - which required surgery. > >This was reported today [8 Jan 1997] in The Natal Witness and on >national television - SABC News. > >Two questions arise from this :- > >1. How does an unaccompanied minor find herslf in such a position - >especially in Business Class? > >2. What was the reason to decrease altitude in order for the passenger >to be freed from the toilet?? Are the toilets at a different pressure >to that of the rest of the cabin? A possible answer to the second question would be the drain cap may have been seated improperly and came loose. This would result is there being cabin pressure on the person sitting on the toilet, but with outside pressure in the toilet and, on the person's posterior. Seems to me I have heard of this type of incident in the past - the earliest recollection being on a DC-6 (of course, the DC-6 was one of the earlier pressurized aircraft). The decrease in altitude would be to allow de-pressurizing the cabin thus equalizing the pressure inside and outside of the cabin. At that time, the person on the toilet could stand up and some sort of "seal" would have to be jammed in the toilet - a wet blanket would be a good possibility - before the plane climbed back to cruise altitude. Lou. From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:56 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >Two questions arise from this :- > >1. How does an unaccompanied minor find herslf in such a position - >especially in Business Class? Can't answer this one. Aren't kids toilet trained by the time they are nine? >2. What was the reason to decrease altitude in order for the passenger >to be freed from the toilet?? Are the toilets at a different pressure >to that of the rest of the cabin? On Boeing a/c (and I assume Airbus would be similar) vacuum toilets operate on the differential pressure btwn the cabin and outside above 15,000 ft (or thereabouts). This means that a valve opens to ambient air and that provides the motive force to suck the contents of the toilet bowl into the waste tank. Below that level a electrically operated blower is used. I'm not sure what the suction difference is, but I can tell you that it is MUCH more noisy at altitude, suggesting to me that the vacuum is much greater using diff pressure - especially at cruising altitude! >From what I've read in the papers (not usually accurate), a valve failed to close, or it opened uncommanded, whilst the girl was still seated. Regards, -- Simon Craig --- If it's not Boeing, then I'm not going! From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:56 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site > On 7 Jan 1997, a South African Airways A320 [Flight SA327] flight > from Johannesburg to Cape Town, the pilot had to decrease altitude in > order for a 9 year old child to be pulled free from the toilet by a > doctor that was on board after it had sucked her in. > Two questions arise from this : > 1. How does an unaccompanied minor find herslf in such a position - > especially in Business Class? I think 9 is plenty old to go to the bathroom I think 9 is plenty old to go to the bathroom by ones self, don't you? > 2. What was the reason to decrease altitude in order for the passenger > to be freed from the toilet?? Are the toilets at a different pressure > to that of the rest of the cabin? Some aircraft toilets use differential pressure to force waste from the toilet to holding tanks, the waste is really carried on air versus a stream of water as in a household toilet. On the ground and low altitude these toilet systems use vacuum blowers to create the differential, at altitude they use the difference between cabin air and outside ambient. Lower altitude means less differential, I would suspect the crew also pulled a couple of circuit breakers to disable the vacuum blower. I am highly skeptical of the incident descibed. The child would have to fall completely into the bowl and seal the outlet completely for the described incident to have occurred. Urban folklore rumors the same to have occurred to extremely obese using vacuum toilets, I have never seen one of these cases substantiated. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:56 From: gerhard Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OnRamp Technologies; ISP; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA Peter Little wrote: > Two questions arise from this :- > > 1. How does an unaccompanied minor find herslf in such a position - > especially in Business Class? Unaccompanied minors aren't allowed to go to the bathroom? > 2. What was the reason to decrease altitude in order for the passenger > to be freed from the toilet?? Are the toilets at a different pressure > to that of the rest of the cabin? I suspect the girl was sitting on the toilet and flushed. The vacuum toilet system uses differential pressure above about 14,000 feet to suck the contents of the toilet into the holding tank. Below that altitude electric fans do it. > I would be grateful for any technical explanation of the incident. I > suppose that the moral of the story is never go for a shit on an > Airbus!!!! Then you better hold it on a 767, 777, MD-90 and MD-11 too. From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:57 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Wake of SuperJumbo Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Would the wake of the next generation lage-scale civil transports be much worse to deal with than that of the actual large planes like the 747, A340? Recently a whole bunch of planes were reclassified to help determine minimum safe separation. Perhaps naively, I assume that a bigger A/C with a bigger wing, carrying more weight and having bigger engines will disturb more air? If that is indeed the case, then the airports visited by 747-600/700 or Airbus A3XX may see a capacity _reduction in the number of movements! -- Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE* FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus- From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:57 From: nak@lucent.com (Neil A Kirby) Subject: Re: Counterfeit parts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lucent Technologies, Columbus, Ohio In article , Seth Dillon wrote: >Brian A. Reynolds wrote: > >> Counterfeit parts is a real and present danger which the FAA and other >> Regulatory Agencies are working to stop. > >You must remember that there are several types of "bogus" parts. [snip - good parts with bad papers] >All of the above are illegal to install on a 121 aircraft, even though >they may be perfectly airworthy. The following are parts which pose a >true and immediate threat to air safety. > >4) Parts which have exceeded their life limit but have been refurbished >and have reentered the system accompanied with forged certs. > >5) Parts which are made from substandard material, or otherwise do not >meet the design specs of the original but are fraudulantly marked and >have forged certs. Those from 5) are nasty to deal with. Once upon a time I worked for the US Air Force as a civil servant in a lab. One of our proudest photographs is of a simple three wire transistor. The steel cap is popped up just allowing you to read the part number on the steel cap. And just up enough to allow you to read the part number of the far tinier, far cheaper transistor hidden inside. To all typical checks, the part is a working transistor. Run it at full power for too long, and it fails inservice. We were happy that people went to jail over that one. We were less happy about the planes and personnel that had been lost that couldn't be brought back. The transistor case was clear and easy to prove once we got it figured out. The bad O-rings that some one sold were a nightmare. They were for F4 Phantom II aircraft hydraulics and they were failure prone. But you needed a laboratory to tell the good expensive ones from the relabeled inadequate ones that had been sold at the expensive price with the expensive part number. Neil Kirby DoD #0783 nak@lucent.com Lucent Technologies - Home of Bell Labs Innovations (Formerly AT&T) Bell Labs Columbus OH USA +1 (614) 860-5304 From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:57 From: D Snow Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At least in the B727, it is suggested that "In other than an emergency situation, 6,000 AGL is recommended as the minimum fuel dump altitude." ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:57 From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights In article , michael.f.lechnar@boei ng.boeing.com writes <> > >The main reason that fuel jettison is used is to meet the FAR 25 requirements >for approach climb and landing climb gradients. A side benefit to landing at >a lower weight is less stress on the airframe. Well, you're *nearly* right, but not quite. The main reason for dumping fuel is for us to get the aircraft down below max. landing weight as soon as possible. Secondary to this is that the lower the weight, the lower the approach speed, which is important in landing with flap/slat malfunctions. You've got to bear in mind that nearly all big airliners take-off at a much higher weight than they can land at. Therefore, if you have to land earlier than scheduled, due an en-route diversion, or an emergency after take-off, you invariably need to dump fuel down to below landing weight. AFAIK, the 'approach climb', and 'landing climb' don't enter into it (whatever they are) -- Pete Finlay pete@meads.demon.co.uk Boeing 747 Senior Flight Engineer From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:57 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zip News Larry Ludwick wrote: > > Gary Moffitt wrote: > > > > In article , davidl@wr.com.au wrote: > > > I had a number of questions concerning fuel dumping: > > [SNIP] > SNIP FWIW the carrier I work for will take an overweight landing and the subsequent inspection over dumping fuel most of the time. The cost of the fuel is one thing but the fall out from the EPA is quite another. The P&D valve on JT8's had to have the "dump" part of it deactivated and RB211's had to have a burner drain recovery system installed in the late 70's. It seems that to much kerosene was getting dumper on the ground during engine shut down. -Seth From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:57 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <:> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Don Stokes (don@rata.vuw.ac.nz) wrote: : In article , : Filip De Vos wrote: : >The latter will not have a nose-door: so will not be able to load 20ft : >containers. Loading/unloading will take longer too. Whether that is enough : Why not? I thought the whole point of the 747's high cockpit was that : the planes could be converted to freighters, complete with nose door, : when they were obsoleted by the SST. I think this mainly played in Boeing's calculations about building new 747s, not neccesarily about converting allready-built aircraft. So when the Jumbo was obsoleted by SSTs, the 747 could continue to be built as a freighter. That way, Boeing's investment was hedged against the (possible) success of a SST. : I wouldn't have thought adding the nose door would have required : significant changes beyond the door itself and the structure immediately : surrounding the hinge mechanism. It's not as if it's a major : load-bearing part of the aircraft. Well, apparently it is. All 747 freight conversions I am aware of, only add a rear side cargo door, in the SL/Combi fashion. The 747-200 Convertible, however, was built with both the nose-opening door of the 747 Freighter and the rear door in addition to all passenger doors and windows. The Dutch carrier Martinair bought two. Of course, no 'conversion' is neccesary to use these planes for cargo transport. Removal of the interior is sufficient, and quite routine. -- Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE* FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus- From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:57 From: Chuck Totman Subject: Re: SAS ditching near LAX References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Reply-To: chuck_totman@hp.com Karl Swartz wrote: > > >>In the 1960s JAL ditched a DC-8 successfully in the bay south of San > >>Francisco. > > >This airplane was purchased by United and I was told that I was aboard it > >when I flew on a DC-8 from DEN to BOS in 1987. The F/A's called it Tokyo > >Rose. > > Don't believe everything you hear. <> > > I don't know the identity of the aircraft which ditched, <> JAL contracted with United to accept the ditched JAL DC-8 for repair in United's heavy maintenance facility at SFO. The plane did fly again. I am unable to provide more complete identity information and I don't know whether the plane was later sold to United or not. However, I wanted to head off confusion that United had bought the plane based simply on the fact that it went to the United facility for repairs. Chuck Totman Usual disclaimers apply. From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:57 From: Cafagna Giovanni Massimo <106013.3022@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Laser-Velocimeter Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Can someone help me about laser-velocimeter?? -- Cafagna Giovanni Massimo From kls Wed Jan 15 04:23:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Jan 97 04:23:57 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) Subject: ex Airbus Industrie Technic Manager accused References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr Bernard Ziegler, ex technic manager is accused in the case of A320 Mont Saint Odile Crash in 92. From news Mon Jan 13 23:46:05 1997 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!panix!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!ais.net!cdc2.cdc.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Airbus reportedly delays jumbo-jet decision Date: 13 Jan 1997 22:25:53 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5becph$hiu@herald.concentric.net> Airbus Industrie apparently has delayed a decision about whether it will produce a new jumbo jet, the A3XX. Boeing may also decide to postpone the launching of the proposed B747-500X and B747-600X. For details, please check out the following Seattle Times article: A few weeks ago, Airbus has also delayed a decision about the A340-600X (according to Aviation Week). From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:22 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Today's Wall St. Journal has an article on page A3 (of the Western Edition) saying that Boeing has cancelled plans to build two larger derivatives of the 747 (the -500X and -600X) due to escalating costs and insufficient orders from customers. Oddly, www.boeing.com, which usually is very current with regard to press releases, has no trace of what the WSJ reported as a late-night announcement on Monday. -- 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 Jan 21 01:32:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:23 From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: DC-8s in service; no 707s? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On-Line Services A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s. A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS, yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline 707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines. Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:23 From: cb61@aol.com (Cb61) Subject: V speed list Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I'm looking for a comprehensive list of V-speeds and their meanings. Any help appreciated. thanks From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:23 From: matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. >Some people won't assimilate the information that are given to them. >They are told Airbus's 2-4-2 economy configuration is more comfortable >than Boeing's 2-5-2. They are also told Airbus's 2-2-2 business >configuration is more comfortable than Boeing's 2-3-2. Some will accept >these statements without even analyzing the information. That's what >I meant by "some peple will believe what they are told to believe". > >IMHO, Airbus's claims are true only when the flight is more than 85-90% >full. Otherwise, the wider seats should win. Personally, I think this entire argument is academic. The people riding in the premium cabins may or may choose an airline based upon comfort. I suspect most make a choice based upon frequent flyer program! Here we are aruing about comfort in the enconomy cabin. Most if not all of the passengers down the back are there on the basis of price. All other things being equal, they will pick comfort, but in general, they are not willing to pay an extra cent for it. You can treat them incredibly badly, but if you have the lowest fare,they will come back for more almost always. I've never understood it, but I've seen it so often it isn't funny. From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:23 From: jetwayne@vonl.com Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Andrew Weir <100637.616@CompuServe.COM> wrote: >>There was an obviously solution to >>the problem, and to this day, no one has any idea why they didn't do >>it. It takes some 23 minutes from first indication until the aircraft >>augers in, so isn't as if they didn't have time. >Boeing's own engineering simulator was reconfigured to include >this data and Boeing's chief test pilot found that if corrective action >were not taken within 4 to 6 seconds after the event, recovery was >impossible. The recovery manoeuvres were not, however, part of normal >airline training.. -cut-.. As an aside for the FBW debate, >this accident could not have happened on an older model plane with >mechanical controls for thrust reversal. What exactly are the procedures in the 767 for thrust reverser deployment? I'm shocked to hear that a deployed reverser would lead to structural failure. All the airplanes I've flown (small jets, nothing with wing mounted engines) have been controlable after an inadvertent deployment. JetWayne From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:24 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "Karl Swartz" writes: >>>According to Boeing, the standard economy >>>seat on the B747 and B777 is 1.5 inches wider than than the standard >>>economy seat on the A300/310/330/340. >> ^^^^^^^^ >>Oh? Nice of Boeing to skew the figures with all those short range 300s/310s > >American just started flying the A300-600 JFK-LHR. Few would consider >that a short-range route. All of Delta's (ex-Pan Am) A310s were used >for even longer trans-Atlantic routes. While they certainly don't >have the range of a 747-400 or A340, the A300 and A310 are not exactly >short-range aircraft in their latest forms. Your point is taken, but the A300/310 are still not in the same class as the 777/747 hence the compilation given still makes me highly suspicious that the seat width figures are skewed. Why did Boeing not include the 767 (and 757, which in some all-economy configs., and we are talking -economy- seats, carries more than the 767)? Both are used trans-Atlantic. Mind you , my hatred of the middle/middle seat -does- make me a 767 fan. B^) My opinion: if it has twin-aisles, the narrower the fuselage cross-section the better. So 767>A330>777. Wasn't there once mention here of an unusual seating arrangement by Gulf Air(?) with a single row of seats in the middle? I also remember , before the A320 went into service that there was talk of offering it as twin aisle with a 2-1-2 arrangement, albiet with (cough) -narrow- aisles. -- -Niels From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:24 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk In article Chuanga@cris.com "H Andrew Chuang" writes: >> >Nevertheless, comfort is a very subjective thing. Also, some people will >> >believe what they are told to believe. >> >> Your last comment is unclear. > >Some people won't assimilate the information that are given to them. >They are told Airbus's 2-4-2 economy configuration is more comfortable >than Boeing's 2-5-2. They are also told Airbus's 2-2-2 business >configuration is more comfortable than Boeing's 2-3-2. Some will accept >these statements without even analyzing the information. That's what >I meant by "some peple will believe what they are told to believe". > >IMHO, Airbus's claims are true only when the flight is more than 85-90% >full. Otherwise, the wider seats should win. I re-address Boeing's skewing of the figures in another post. Of course Airbus skews (see below), but you presented Boeing's Web page not Airbus. I will assume you are not snidely suggesting that -I- believe what I have been told what to believe by AI. This would really not be the place for personal innuendo. My point about the middle seat was based on my own experience, much as you enjoy a wider seat. The average load factor of ~60-70% is merely an average. One flight at mid-week may be 40% full. At weekends it may be 90-100% As another poster in this thread points out, people will fly on `uncomfortable' a/c as readily as `comfortable' ones. If AA has decided to replace its LHR-bound 767s with A300s, then no matter which is more/less `comfortable', and we both now agree this is highly subjective, it doesn't apparently make a difference. Even the wider seat wouldn't "win", as you suggest, with the majority. Although analysts/enthusiasts such as you and I may have our preferences, in economy class only price matters to most people. Perhaps you have mistaken me as pro-Airbus and/or anti-Boeing. In fact I am only anti-slick-marketing (whoever), even if it is `good business', and anti-middle-seat of course B^). e.g. I think the 767-400 is a -great- answer to the A330-200 ...again, its the middle-seat issue for me. If you will allow me some humor not meant to be at your `expense' (or mine for that matter B^) ) : Do you think Boeing will let that issue pass and not suggest to people that they should believe 2-3-2 is better than 2-4-2? I for one -will- believe that! B^) Airbus Industrie is IMHO simply still clumsy at being slick (whether by words or by design/deed, I agree) and is easier to attack idealogically (as is often the case here) with post-cold war victor's justice, or to simply make into a straw-man (something one presents merely to knock down to make oneself look `wise'). As such, AI, and Boeing, lends themselves well to the sort of `sports team' (home-side vs. away-side) debates which occasionally dominate these newsgroups. Some will support the `underdog', some the `leading' side. The rhetorical question is `which is which'? Given their various characteristics, I see them as six-of-one, half-a-dozen of the other. Two viciously big corporations. Coke or Pepsi? Your mileage may vary. -Niels From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:24 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) wrote: > It would be nice if it were true that people would avoid uncomfortable > airplanes, but it just isn't. I asked a travel agent how often > someone specified the type of plane when making travel plans (or even > asking before they purchased tickets)... she said "maybe one person > per *year*". Industry surveys taken on board or immediately after de-planing show that the vast majority of passengers have no idea of what kind of plane they're riding on, who made it, or how many engines it has. Nor do they care. Primary concerns are ticket cost and schedule convenience. Of the very few people who are aware of the type of plane they're on, most of them are in business or first class, which makes sense, as these travellers are generally a little more picky about their air travel experience. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:24 From: jfmezei Subject: Re: 767 Tail-Bang on lift-off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam.jfmezei@videotron.ca Reid Fairburn wrote: > >3 Why do US airports not have transit lounges? Because few USA airports were built/designed as international hubs. Some have lounges but they are quite limited. In the case of an LAX-LHR flight, you may have had passengers who came from the South Pacific or (unlikely) Asia and who did not clear USA customs prior to boarding the LAX-LHR flight. (I beleive that LAX does have an international transit lounge). The lack of use of a transit lounge at JFK may either be the result of the non-exitence of such, or the unavailability of gates at such facility (remember that your landing at JFK was unscheduled and such gates may have been in use for regularly scheduled flights). Also, many USA airports (not sure about JFK) have dedicated facilities for international arrivals, but use unspecialised facilities for international departures. (eg: Boston's Logan airport where incoming US airlines use terminal E, but outgoing US airlines use their regular domestic terminal). This makes the transit lounge concept moot since very few flights actually leave from such "international" terminals (read; rerminal equipped with customs facilities). Since your LAX-LHR flight may have had uncleared passengers for USA, it was impossible to use any transit lounge that was not dedicated to international travel with the only possible exit through customs. This is in sharp contrast with most US transit lounges where J.Q. Public can wonder around unticketed in the air-side and leave without any formalities. From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:24 From: "Brian A. Reynolds" Subject: Re: 767 Tail-Bang on lift-off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins >Why do US airports not have transit lounges? We were marched off one >plane to the replacement in groups of 10 (almost under armed guard) and >forced to sit in it for almost 3 hours while fuel was unloaded and food >and drink loaded. In the US airports are owned and operated by the local municipality (rather then by the Government as is common elsewhere). Each airline does have lounges, however they are 'by invitation' (read 'Pay $600 or so for a year and we'll invite you') so they are not open to the public, even when it is the airline which has caused the problem. Marching you, the self-loading-cargo, from one aircraft to another makes sure that you don't go astray and get lost. They can't afford sheep dogs to round you all back up :) Brian From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:24 From: terenz@neutron.reno.nv.us (Terence Liow) Subject: Re: 767 Tail-Bang on lift-off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Great Basin Internet Services, Reno, NV On 13 Jan 97 18:35:31 , Mike Hall wrote: >1 Is such an event a common occurence? Who is likely to be to blame - Supposedly can happen with the MD-80s as well as 747s. The JAL 747SR that crashed in Japan a decade or so back had that happened. When the plane's rear bulkhead was reapired, they repairers used only a single row of rivets, not double as specified by Boeing, which lead the the failure of the bulkhead and loss of the vertical fin (and all controls). >3 Why do US airports not have transit lounges? We were marched off one >plane to the replacement in groups of 10 (almost under armed guard) Partly because U.S. airports are not designed for international transit and connection, and thus have no transit areas as a result. Seems silly they would have kept you that way as it's likely everyone who got on originated from the U.S. From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:25 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: 767 Tail-Bang on lift-off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zip News Mike Hall wrote: > Last Sunday we took AA136 (supposedly) LAX-LHR; the 'plane was a 767-300. > When the pilot rotated the tail of the plane hit the runway; result was 2 > hours going in circles dumping fuel and an (eventual) re-route via JFK as > the crew had exceeded their hours - 19 hours in total.... Most of the longer aircraft have some type of tail skid installed to prtect the aft fuselage from receiving too much damage. The one glaring exception to this that I know of is the 757-200. I have seen several 757s with extensive damage to the lower aft fuselage due to over rotation. The worst had the skin worn completely through to the stringers (longerons), stringers and frames deformed and the aft P-dome was buckeled. I also worked a L1011-1 (which has a tail skid) which suffered considerable damage. The tail skid was shoved into the after body, the p-dome was buckled and the apu & apu compartment doors were damaged. This incident happened on landing, however. The 737-200 has no tail skid and I was told that the aft end of the thrust reversers will contact the ground in a high sink rate high nose up attitude landing. It is a believed that this situation may also damage the aft mount cone bolt and lead to an engine seperation at a later date if undetected ( the original aft mount on 737-200s was pretty shakey). An AD addressed this problem with a redesigned aft mount and the addition of a fail safe cable arrangement. -Seth From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 From: airline@flash.net Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <:> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) wrote: >: Why not? I thought the whole point of the 747's high cockpit was that >: the planes could be converted to freighters, complete with nose door, >: when they were obsoleted by the SST. The 747 was designed as a freighter from day one, as this was one of Pan Am's requirements (a dual mission aircraft). The high cockpit design dates back to the competition for the USAF global transport (Lockheed won with the C5-A), and that predated the SSC if I'm not mistaken. One of the requirements of the USAF freighter design was the ability to drive military transports on and off under their own power, hence a tail or nose opening would be essential for anything larger than a Jeep. The high cockpit on a freighter actually dates back to British AirFerries' "Carvair", which was a prop aircraft modified to have the cockpit above the cargo deck, and clamshell doors on the nose... Some of the printed accounts I've seen on the 747 development point to safety issues of having containers breaking loose during a rejected takeoff. The inertial energy of the containers could result in the cockpit being crushed... Why this wasn't an issue for the DC10 or other main deck freighters is beyond me! Eric From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 From: 1jnb@worldnet.att.com (J Berry) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>Airbus proposed A300 600ST "BELUGA" to FEDEX and UPS but they refused >>due to the cost and the poor return on investment. UPS prefers used (cheap) equip, anyway Bought 757/767s new, but the vast majority of the fleet is very used >Weird. Those would be two of the *last* cargo carriers who I would >think of as potential "Beluga" operators, since they rarely if ever >deal with very large or bulky cargo. (Do either of them even handle >such work on a contract basis? UPS does, it's nascent now but expected to grow. UPS is trying to finesse ground movement of "AIR" service pkgs. to free up space for "untapped" revenue sources (air cargo). Thus, your Next Day Air pkg has a decent chance of never seeing the inside of an airplane! (Fedex moving in this direction also) I know its off-topic, but UPS is rolling out PASSENGER service this yr They have ordered roll-in seating (decked out nicely) to utilize their planes for weekend leisure travel. One problem that I would have a difficult time overcoming: NO WINDOWS, of course. >>CARGOLUX which used 747 400F said that they have lot of difficulties >>to rentabilised this aircraft. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ?? I think everyone has difficulty rentabilising, eh? J Berry From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 From: geoffnich@aol.com (GeoffNich) Subject: First DC-9 Active Noise Control System Approved By FAA Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The Federal Aviation Administration approved the installation of Lord Corporation's NVX Active Noise and Vibration Control System in the DC-9 Series of aircraft. The Supplimental Type Certificate (ST01241AT) was issued on January 8, 1997 thereby making NVX the first active noise and vibration control system to receive FAA approval on a commercial jet airliner. http://www.lordcorp.com/nvx/NVX_Home.html The NVX Active Noise and Vibration Control System makes the rear of the DC-9 cabin as quiet as the front. This should be a welcomed relief for passengers. From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 From: onat@turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Onat Ahmet) Subject: First hijacked 777?! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kyoto University, JAPAN An All Nippon Airlines 777 was hijacked yesterday(1-20), en route from Osaka to Fukuoka. The hijacker was arrested shortly after the plane landed in Fukuoka, and there were no casualties. Is this the first time a 777 is hijacked? Ahmet ONAT Kyoto Univ. Japan E-mail : onat@kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp WWW page : http://turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp/staff/onat.html My 6 leg walker, RC airplanes & more in home page From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Wake of SuperJumbo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics The severity of a wake vortex is a direct function of the weight (and therefore lift) of an aircraft. Yes, a very very heavy 747-600 or an A340-600X will probably generate a bigger vortex pattern than a 747-400 or an A340-300, and yes, they may have to increase following distances accordingly. Then again, the physics of the designs may make them no worse than current generation aircraft. That's why they test that sort of thing on the computer (using CFD) and in real life (usually at Atlantic City Technical Center) just to be sure. Jennings Heilig From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 From: bi737@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel G. Sharpes) Subject: Re: Wake of SuperJumbo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH Reply-To: bi737@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel G. Sharpes) In a previous article, FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) says: >Would the wake of the next generation lage-scale civil transports be much >worse to deal with than that of the actual large planes like the 747, >A340? >Recently a whole bunch of planes were reclassified to help determine >minimum safe separation. >Perhaps naively, I assume that a bigger A/C with a bigger wing, carrying >more weight and having bigger engines will disturb more air? Absolutely right. The vortex strength behind any size aircraft is a function of Lift / (air density x airspeed). The heavier an aircraft and the slower it flies the stronger the wake vortex. Dan -- Dan From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 From: "L.M.N. Peiris" Subject: Re: Wake of SuperJumbo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cambridge University Engineering Department Filip De Vos wrote: > > Would the wake of the next generation lage-scale civil transports be much > worse to deal with than that of the actual large planes like the 747, > A340? > Recently a whole bunch of planes were reclassified to help determine > minimum safe separation. > Perhaps naively, I assume that a bigger A/C with a bigger wing, carrying > more weight and having bigger engines will disturb more air? > > If that is indeed the case, then the airports visited by 747-600/700 or > Airbus A3XX may see a capacity _reduction in the number of movements! Obviously the larger planes would generate a stronger wake vortex due to its larger wing dimensions and the downwash would be greater on approach and landing compared to todays 747s. However, a study conducted at Heathrow Airport in London has shown that how long a wake vortex would last in the air depends on the weather conditions, such as wind velocity, temperature gradients etc. Sometimes they disappear very rapidly especially on windy days and sometimes they remain for a long time particulary if the atmosphere is neutral. A 747 super jumbo may create a larger wake vortex than the existing 747s but it would not significantly influence the movement capacity of the airport. Navin Peiris. Cambridge University. lmnp1@eng.cam.ac.uk From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 From: jetwayne@vonl.com Subject: 777 Tail wag fix Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Does anyone know what Boeing ever did to fix the tail wag problem with the 777? From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Boeing launches 767-400ERX References: <5as5pj$ekg@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP In article , Terry Schell wrote: >matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) writes: > > >>The following information on the 767-400ERX is from the 6 January 1997 edition >>of Aviation Week and Space technology > >>The 767-400ERX is claimed to offer comparable capacity to the A330-200 with a >>directoperating cost about 5% lower. > >Is this figure from an independent analyst or from Boeing? I am not >doubting it... but I would love to know if this is marketing hype or >something calculated by the folks at AWST. The figure is from Boeing. It's reasonably believable hower. Boeing tend not to make promises about aircraft performances that they can't meet. Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk "`I need every aluminum can you can find! And duct tape!" From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 From: "J. N. Esau" <76236.3133@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Boeing launches 767-400ERX References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: date "In addition the the aircraft is being fitted with uprated Air Conditioning and APU,and in increase in onboard power generation to 120KVA from 90 KVA (I would assume from VSCF alternators)." The 767-200/300 use an Integrated Drive Generator (IDG) rated at 90KVA (same type unit used on the 757 and 747). From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:27 From: "L.M.N. Peiris" Subject: TCAS on Airbus A340 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cambridge University Engineering Department Could anyone tell if the traffic alert and collision avoidance systems (TCAS) is fitted to all A340 aircrafts at manufacturing or whether it is an option available for the airlines? From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:27 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Misconceived Mammoth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus Free-Net Tony Maddern (tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au) wrote: : Ostreger wrote: : > : > Why is the A3XX Omnibus not a V-tail mid-winger? : It could be because the main wing spar on a mid-winger would have to : pass through the passenger cabin which is commercially unacceptable. : Also a mid-wing A3XX may lose the ability to carry centre-wing tank fuel : and would have its potential range reduced. Belly tanks could be used : but these would adversely impact under-floor freight/baggage capacity. Won't the A3XX, if ever, be fully double decked, making a nice place for a spar to go through the upper deck floor? -- Gerry From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:27 From: gsabi@negia.net ( rg) Subject: Re: Misconceived Mammoth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: North East Georgia Internet Access, Inc. (NEGIA) kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >The mid-wing configuration is a problem for ditching. Not insoluble >since even high-wing designs have been used for relatively recent >commercial aircraft -- the BAe 146 and the ATR family are two common >examples, though neither is intended for long overwater flights. I don't know that I'd call the 146 a 'recent' design. From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:27 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Misconceived Mammoth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >It could be because the main wing spar on a mid-winger would have to >pass through the passenger cabin which is commercially unacceptable. >Also a mid-wing A3XX may lose the ability to carry centre-wing tank fuel >and would have its potential range reduced. Ah, but then they would be much safer than a 747, because they would not have the potential of the centre wing tank exploding. Regards, -- Simon Craig --- If it's not Boeing, then I'm not going! From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:27 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: SAS ditching near LAX References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk In article bizfixer@aol.com "Bizfixer" writes: >Tokyo/Haneda - similar setup to SFO - had a series of accidents in the 60s >which demonstrate an important moral: never fly with someone whose number >is up! An Air Canada DC-8 hit the seawall and cartwheeled down the ^^^^^^^^^^^ >runway, killing all but 17. This doesn't ring any bells with me, and Air Canada never flew (sched.) to Tokyo in the `60s. Canadian Pacific maybe?? -- -Niels From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:27 From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: SAS ditching near LAX References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. In article , chuck_totman@hp.com wrote: >JAL contracted with United to accept the ditched JAL DC-8 for repair in >United's heavy maintenance facility at SFO. The plane did fly again. >I am unable to provide more complete identity information and I don't >know whether the plane was later sold to United or not. However, I >wanted to head off confusion that United had bought the plane based >simply on the fact that it went to the United facility for repairs. Whether it was the same plane or not, an ex-JAL DC-8-71 did end up in the UA fleet - N8177U I believe. I was on it once. The F cabin had the galley in a different location but the real giveaway was the Japanese words engraved on the lavatory metalwork. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:27 From: "Mark E. Ingram" Subject: Re: NTSB announcement regarding flight 800 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The following letter appeared in the January 6, 1997, issue of _Aviation_Week_ (page 6): MAYBE IT WAS PERSEIDS? I was interested to read in "Washington Outlook" that serious consideration is being given to the possibility that the TWA accident might have been caused by meteorites (_AW&ST_ Dec. 2, 1996, p. 19). Because the accident occurred in late July, not long before the Perseids reach their peak intensity, this might be a reasonable explanation. Such a finding is probably not very appealing politically, because it doesn't favor any "fixes" such as increased security and/or aircraft modifications. It could, however, lead us to get more serious about tracking near-Earth space objects, which is certainly something we need to do. It also might help increase public acceptance of the reality that risks are an unavoidable consequence of our existence. James R. Stone Westlake, Ohio ---------------- Somehow I overlooked the referenced item in the Dec. 2 issue of _AW&ST. Could someone please quote or summarize? Best regards, Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:27 From: Giles Moss Subject: Disaster? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: (none) Hello (Apologies if this is in any way off topic) Can anyone in the UK help me? I am looking for a copy of the programme 'DISASTER', shown in the UK on Channel 4, at 2000hrs on Jan 16th. The subject of this episode was the Chicago Air Disaster of 1989. If anyone has a taped copy of the programme, I would be very grateful if I could borrow it. If you can help me, please mail me a.s.a.p. Thanks in advance, Giles Moss -- From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:27 From: "Brian A. Reynolds" Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Pete Finlay wrote: > > In article , michael.f.lechnar@boei > ng.boeing.com writes > > <> > > > >The main reason that fuel jettison is used is to meet the FAR 25 requirements > >for approach climb and landing climb gradients. A side benefit to landing at > >a lower weight is less stress on the airframe. > > Well, you're *nearly* right, but not quite. The main reason for dumping > fuel is for us to get the aircraft down below max. landing weight as > soon as possible. Secondary to this is that the lower the weight, the > lower the approach speed, which is important in landing with flap/slat > malfunctions. > > You've got to bear in mind that nearly all big airliners take-off at a > much higher weight than they can land at. Therefore, if you have to land > earlier than scheduled, due an en-route diversion, or an emergency after > take-off, you invariably need to dump fuel down to below landing weight. > > AFAIK, the 'approach climb', and 'landing climb' don't enter into it > (whatever they are) Hi Pete, sorry, have to agree with Mike. FAR 25.1001 Fuel jettisoning system. (a) A fuel jettisoning system must be installed unless it si shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of 25.119 and 25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, go-around, and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane configuration, speed, power, and thrust thte same as that used in meeting the applicable takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance requirements of this Part. Landing gear is addressed in 25.721 and the requirements deal with the adequacy of the landing gear, reserve capability, and testing. It is my understanding that Airbus aircraft do not have the capability to jettison fuel. Brian From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:27 From: jdk@apk.net (John Knopp) Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Hackers Association Pete Finlay wrote: >AFAIK, the 'approach climb', and 'landing climb' don't enter into it >(whatever they are) In the US, we have approach climb and landing climb charts to give us and idea of go-around capability and obstacle clearance at various weights should a missed approach be initiated at low altitude. Most of the time you're only limited by structural landing weight but there are occasions where the approach climb numbers figure prominently in the equation if a missed approach requires a greater than normal climb rate, such as airports in mountainous terrain or "downtown" airports where a go-around would take you near tall buildings or radio/TV towers. -- John Knopp jdk@apk.net DC-9 Cleveland, OH From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:28 From: ifly Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indigo Pete, The previous poster was correct. The main reason your landing weight is restricted in most airliners is your go around climb profile. The go around is usually conducted at a larger flap setting than take off, and the airplane`s net climb angle is therefor lower. Reducing the approach flap setting, thereby increasing the Vref will often give a higher permissible landing weight where it`s performance restricted. Having said that, sometimes the restriction is structural, and other times it`s based on runway length, so just as in takepoff RTOW`s there`s a number of landing weight restrictions. If I had a flap/slat problem, I`d just pick a longer runway! Jeff Morris From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:28 From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In message <5bq7na$vh@news.indigo.ie>, ifly writes >The previous poster was correct. Not 100%. >The main reason your landing weight is >restricted in most airliners is your go around climb profile. That may be the case on smaller aircraft where the maximum landing weight is a higher percentage of the maximum take off weight, but the go-around climb profile of a 747 which is below max. landing weight is an awful lot better than the T.O. profile at max. T.O. weight. The maximum T.O. weight for our 747-236 aircraft is 372 tonnes, with a normal flap setting of 20 degrees. Max landing weight is 285 tonnes, with a normal flap setting on the go- around of 20 degrees (although the initial flap setting on the go-around may be 25 degrees i.e. landing flap, this is pulled back to 20 degrees early on in the go-around). AFAIK, the restriction for maximum landing weight for the 747, as decreed by Boeing, is purely structural. I can't remember ever coming across a case flying Boeing 707, DC-10, or Boeing 747 where the maximum landing weight wasn't structural. I don't think I've ever had a performance landing weight below max. landing weight. Maybe Bogota on a hot day with an engine out. >Having said that, sometimes the restriction is structural, and other >times it`s based on runway length, so just as in takepoff RTOW`s there`s >a number of landing weight restrictions. That may be the case on some types of aircraft, but not on the ones I've flown. >If I had a flap/slat problem, I`d just pick a longer runway! Wouldn't we all. It is possible to pick a longer runway in Europe, or the States, but where we fly to, we very rarely have the option of going for a longer runway or different airfield :{ -- Pete Finlay pete@meads.demon.co.uk Boeing 747 Senior Flight Engineer From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:28 From: Joules Potter Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Typhoon In article , Seth Dillon writes >FWIW the carrier I work for will take an overweight landing and the >subsequent inspection over dumping fuel most of the time. I am quite surprised that your company prefers overweight landings, I have done a few Heavy/Overweight landing checks(mostly on B757, B747 1/200 and DC10 equipment) and it can be a lengthy inspection, especially if you find damage during the initial 'part A' inspection and have to move up to the Part B. Taking an aircraft out of service, with the subsequent impact on the operation, to carry out checks for an event that is entirely aviodable, seems an odd way to run an aviation company. I am not familiar with the powers of the EPA but it sounds like they are two steps down from God. >The P&D valve on JT8's had to have the "dump" part of it deactivated and >RB211's had to have a burner drain recovery system installed in the late >70's. It seems that to much kerosene was getting dumper on the ground >during engine shut down. I am glad they did though, it means mechanics don't have to wade through a gallon of fuel before they even open the engine cowls. :-) -- Joules Potter Licenced Aircraft Engineer From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:29 From: Jeff Cybulski Subject: Re: AA and UA DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Reply-To: skiea3b@earthlink.net Drew Jackson wrote: > > I am curious about American's and United's DC-10's that are still in > service. How many does each airline now have in its operational fleet, > and how long are they scheduled to stay? AAL currently has 14 DC-10-10's and 5 DC-10-30's in revenue service From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:29 From: "Matthew MacMillan" Subject: Re: AA and UA DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia Drew Jackson wrote in article ... > I am curious about American's and United's DC-10's that are still in > service. How many does each airline now have in its operational fleet, > and how long are they scheduled to stay? United has 22 DC10-10's and 8 DC10-30's in the fleet at the moment. The aircraft are being retired at around 5 per annum. Most are going to FedEx as part swap for hushkits for some of the 727 fleet. FedEx are converting the DC10-10 to freighters with a 2 person Glass Cockpit similar to the MD11 (the converted aircraft will be re-designated MD10). You can get more info about UA's fleet at one of the 2 home pages WWW.UAL.COM is the official "Friendly Skyline" or WWW.UALFLTCTR.COM is the homepage of the Flight Centre where Flight Deck and Flight Attendant simulator training takes place. Sorry I dont have any info on AA's fleet but maybe their home page is the place to start. Regards Matt MacMillan From kls Tue Jan 21 01:32:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Jan 97 01:32:29 From: sfeigin@us.oracle.com Subject: Flood Damage Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Corporation. Redwood Shores, CA Reply-To: sfeigin@us.oracle.com I saw a picture of an aircraft (maybe a 757) parked at the gate at Reno/Tahoe airport during the recent flood. The water appeared to be almost up to the engines. If there was a 737 parked at that time (as there usually are at Reno), I suspect that the engines would have been under water. Obviously the engines are designed to get wet (it does rain sometimes), but what about total submersion? What has to be done before the aircraft flys again? Stuart Feigin Oracle for AS/400 Development Oracle Corp. Truckee, CA Of course nothing I write is the official opinion of Oracle Corp. That's Larry's job. From news Wed Jan 22 17:56:07 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!news.erg.sri.com!unix.sri.com!news.Stanford.EDU!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: hrose@rocza.kei.com (Helen Trillian Rose) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X was Re: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Jan 1997 18:04:17 GMT Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Sender: hrose@rocza.kei.com Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5c30f1$ptm$5@kragar.kei.com> References: Mr Swartz made a minor typo in the Subject: header (and if you read his message body, you'll see that). It's the 747-500/600 that Boeing has tabled, at least for now. There is a Clarinet article which covers this that I am attempting to obtain reprint permission, and I will post it once that happens. --Helen -- Helen Rose, hrose@rocza.kei.com http://www.kei.com/homepages/hrose/ "the trees that whisper in the evening / sing a song of sorrow and grieving" - Mike Oldfield "Moonlight Shadow" From news Sat Jan 25 12:38:37 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.cerf.net!nntp-server.caltech.edu!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!news.texas.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X was Re: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? Date: 21 Jan 1997 21:44:36 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5c3dc4$kmj@chronicle.concentric.net> References: <5c30f1$ptm$5@kragar.kei.com> In article <5c30f1$ptm$5@kragar.kei.com>, Helen Trillian Rose wrote: >Mr Swartz made a minor typo in the Subject: header (and if you read his >message body, you'll see that). > >It's the 747-500/600 that Boeing has tabled, at least for now. There is a >Clarinet article which covers this that I am attempting to obtain reprint >permission, and I will post it once that happens. > Boeing has just released the news: Also from Seattle Times: From news Sat Jan 25 15:14:06 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!news From: Michael Butler Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:50:19 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Sender: MTA-IC Moderator Approved: aircargo@concentric.net Message-ID: <32fe7206.4973594@news.concentric.net> References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <:> airline@flash.net wrote: > The high cockpit on a freighter actually dates > back to British AirFerries' "Carvair", which was a prop aircraft > modified to have the cockpit above the cargo deck, and clamshell doors > on the nose... > > Eric Actually Eric the high cockpit goes even further back to the Bristol Freighter. I remember these being used in Wellington on a quick turn around inter-island service. Palletised cargo was loaded through the nose and unloaded through the tail door - or was it the other way around? Mike Butler Wellington NZ From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:53 From: Jean-Francois Mezei <"nospam<-jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam@wagner.spc.videotron.ca Will the [temporary] pull-out of the extra large 747s by Boeing impact Airbus positively with regards to its equivalent A3XX project ? Is the market for such planes big enough for only one airplane at this time, or is it even too small for that ? I do not wish to talk about financing of such a project, just about market potential. If the market currently does not exist, will it ever ? If so, when ? From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:54 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X?(was Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: > Today's Wall St. Journal has an article on page A3 (of the Western > Edition) saying that Boeing has cancelled plans to build two larger > derivatives of the 747 (the -500X and -600X) due to escalating costs > and insufficient orders from customers. > I guess I just can't keep quite on this subject. ;-) Being from East Asia, I'm a firm believer of the superjumbo, particularly for the East Asian market. Perhaps, the market may not be ready for the new aircraft. Nevertheless, I think it will happen; and I think Airbus will make it happen. Boeing's reasons for cancelling the project are logical. However, I think Airbus's marketing people have done a great job in convincing some key customers from not committing to Boeing. The superjumbo will have a smaller customer base than the B747. (The customer base for the B747 is already a small one. Approximately 50% of the B747 in service are with the top ten or twelve B747 operators.) Even before launching the A3XX, Airbus basically has at least three customers in its basket, namely, Air France, Lufthansa, and Korean Air (Korea is likely to be the first Asian A3XX partner). Unfortunately for Boeing, United and NW will not provide too many orders. In addition, with both British and Singapore willing to wait to see Airbus's offering, Boeing simply does not have a solid base to work with. Before the Farnborough Air Show last September, it appeared Boeing had locked in with Singapore, Japan, etc. Boeing's three-year advantage seemed to be insurmountable. However, Airbus's last minute maneuver appeared to have worked. Anyway, maybe there is an interesting twist: I read about a British speculation in a news digest (I have not read the actual article). It suggested that Boeing is working on a futuristic lifting-surface superjumbo previously proposed by McDonnell Douglas. Of course, Boeing denied the report. P.S. I had previously mentioned about the differences in superjumbo market projections by various manufacturers. I had expressed my doubts about Airbus's figure of nearly 1,400 deliveries in the next 20 years. However, at that time, I did not notice there was a difference in Airbus's and Boeing's market base. Boeing's figure is for aircraft with a seating capacity of 500 and over, while Airbus's is for 400 and over. Thus, the discrepancy between Boeing's and Airbus's figures may not be as significant as it appears. From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:54 From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X was Re: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? References: <5c30f1$ptm$5@kragar.kei.com> <5c3dc4$kmj@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home According to a UK newspaper the new Boeing jumbo may be a flying wing design which will hold 800 in a double deck layout. It is a McD design which is at the flying model stage funded to $3billion by the government. NASA/whoever are hoping to get more money to develop it further! All views expressed are personal and _|_ do not necessarily reflect those of _____(_)_____ my employer ! ! ! ian@judgei.demon.co.uk http://www.judgei.demon.co.uk/ From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:54 From: "Mike Pisenti" Subject: Re: Flood Damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I can't say what happened to the 757 or any 737s that were at Reno, but Reno Air's MD-80s had the advantage of having the engines well above water level. Water was to the top of the main tires on one of our aircraft before they did a power-back to move it. From what I understand, the power-back was rather spectacular! I believe that the only thing needed for Reno Air's aircraft was a gear and bearing inspection and changing the tires and brakes. Mike ROA Dispatch From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:54 From: D Snow Subject: Re: Flood Damage Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM It was a picture of an AA B757 tied up at the gate. I remember seeing it in the Chicago Sun Times, and wondering the same thing. I think at least a complete gear system check, a hydraulic system bleed and purge to get the water out of the hyd. lines. I recall that the waterlevel came up about a few inches below the lip of the engine inlet, but that the standing water level WAS NOT in the inlet itself. If the standing water was standing IN the engine, then the engine itself would probably have to be replaced, for mud and engine parts do not mix well. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie (Currently INOP) From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:54 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Flood Damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA >I saw a picture of an aircraft (maybe a 757) parked at the gate at >Reno/Tahoe airport during the recent flood. The water appeared to be >almost up to the engines. If there was a 737 parked at that time (as >there usually are at Reno), I suspect that the engines would have been >under water. >Obviously the engines are designed to get wet (it does rain sometimes), >but what about total submersion? What has to be done before the aircraft >flys again? It was an AA 757. I know because I work the AA 757 tech desk. As the flood waters began to rise we cosidered taxing the A/C to higher ground. However, that idea was rejected due to the considerable amount of water and floating flood debris the engines would ingest, the questionable braking action with brakes submerged and the hazards of not being able to see the taxiway through the water. We considered towing the plane out, but all of the tractors were out of service. As you saw from the pictures the water eventually reached the top of the main gear. When things dried out we decided to remove and replace all the tires and wheels due to water contamination of the wheel bearings (we probably could have cleaned and repacked wheel bearings on site), we inspected the brakes and dried them out with compressed air, we replaced all the axle mounted wheel speed transducers and dried out various gear mounted electrical connectors and junction boxes. As you can see nothing to terribly exotic. But what about a 737 and total engine submersion? A good question. I think you would probably have to change the engines out. Yes the engines can fly though substantial rain, but that water is vaporized and follows the gaspath through the engine. It does not enter the combustion chamber in liquid form, nor does it flood into oil passage ways and tanks through vents. And what about electric components on the engine? I'd like to hear what a 737 operator has to say. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 From: "McElravy" Subject: Turboprop startup speed question (long) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On New Years Eve day I had an interesting experience, and I've been thinking about it ever since. I was on the observation deck at the Youngstown, OH regional airport (YNG) battling with myself over just how much I enjoyed watching aviation. It was 6:30 in the morning and there was a wind chill of well below zero, but I still remained on the very cold, very outside rooftop observation deck. Beneath me were three turboprops: on the far left a United Express ATP, in the middle a USAir Express Beech 1900D, and on the far right a Northwest Airlink Saab 340. As I watched, numb, passengers came out of the terminal and boarded the SF 340, a full house it looked like. The flight was the 6:40 to Akron-Canton (or AkCan as it's affectionately called) and then on to DTW. After all the passengers were on board the plane started its #2 engine. After a few throttle and prop adjustments the captain fired up #1. A few more adjustments. After a while the plane was finally on its way. It crossed the ramp and proceeded to the runup area where it puttered around for a little longer. Finally the plane was off the ground and on its way. While the Saab was leaving the 1900D was loading and got on its way, but I want to discuss that last, for reasons you'll see. The last plane to leave was the ATP, which was also going to AkCan then on to ORD. After my deadbeat relative got on board the aircraft, it fired up its #2 engine. Holy cow! My ears rang as the 6 bladed prop sliced through the air. After the longest time, the crew finally started the #1 engine. As the decibels doubled I became more concerned with the noise than the bitter cold. After more puttering, whining, and adjusting, the plane finally began to taxi to the runway holding point. The runup was long and drawn out. But finally my relative was in the air on his way to Austin. Now back to the 1900D. After the door was closed the captain started the #2 engine. Then it started the #2 engine. Then it taxied away. Then it took off towards Pittsburgh. Snap*Snap*Snap*Snap. Just like that. Now here is my question: is the time of the performance that each of these aircraft puts on related to the size? The shortest performance, by half, was the 1900D with 19 passengers. Next was the Saab with 30 passengers. Longest of all, double the Saab, was the ATP with 60 some passengers. The reason I was so amazed at the whole little show (which lasted only about 12 minutes; you don't often see that at a small airport) was that I had partially forgotten the time that it took to start a turboprop. All of my commuter flights in several years have been on speedy USAir Express 1900Ds. My last ride before that was in a Shorts critter, 3 years ago. The startup time on it (I am considering startup time the time from the closing of the hatch to the rotation of the aircraft) seemed to be similar to that of the Saab. Both aircraft are roughly the same size, which reinforces my theory. (I wish I'd had my stopwatch) So: turboprop people, what's the word? (I'm sorry my message was as long as the ATP startup, but I was trying to make a point.) Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com http://users.penn.com/~cpa1/gallery.htm (Airliner Photo Index - NEW!!) From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Come to Miami...there are *lots* of 707s still hauling cargo in and out of here every single day. Not as many as there are DC-8s to be sure, but I suspect it's a factor of operating costs at this point. The DC-8 has always been a good cargo hauling airplane. Come to think of it, so is the DC-6 and the DC-10 and the MD-11. Perhaps Douglas should have learned something from this trend a long time ago? Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 From: Pete Adler Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable One of the primary reasons for the continuing success of the DC-8 is the = stretched fuselage (-61/63 series). This significantly improved the = economics of the airplane in comparison to the DC-8 From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 From: swestin@ford.com (Stephen Westin ) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ford Motor Company In article dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) writes: > A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the > number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s. > A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been > a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS, > yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline > 707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines. > Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service > up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? My take on this is that the DC-8 was, due to tail/landing gear configuration, amenable to stretching while the 707 was not. So there never was a Boeing equivalent to DC-8-6x. Some airlines deemed it worthwhile to re-engine the stretched '8s with CFM-56's, which improved fuel economy and noise performance and extended their useful life. The 707 re-engine program was dropped for lack of interest, though KC-135's got the new engines. I believe that 707's have trouble meeting airport noise requirements, so have been dropped from major airline fleets. -- -Stephen H. Westin swestin@ford.com The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's. From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Merlin Dorfman wrote: > It has been > a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS, > yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline > 707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines. > Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service > up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? I saw a cargo 707 about 3 years ago belonging to a smaller cargo company, not one of the big ones. About a 2 years ago I saw an immaculate, gleaming 707 on the ramp in El Paso, and discovered that it was a German Air Force aircarft. Others have later info on the disposition of the 707 fleet than I do, but last I heard there were still quite a few 707's carrying passengers in other countries- particularly Latin America and the middle East. My guesses as to why we see more cargo carrying DC-8's than 707's in the US would be that DC-8 airframes are less in demand for non-cargo applications, both overseas and by vairious air forces. Also, I suspect that the first-line operators of both aircraft held on to their 707's and ran them up to higher hours than did DC-8 operators (not that the DC-8 isn't an excellent aircraft, but it was decidedly less popular than the 707). -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 From: "Richard Isakson" Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WhidbeyNet Merlin Dorfman wrote in article ... > A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the > number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s. > A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been > a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS, > yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline > 707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines. > Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service > up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? > It's a question of engine noise. The DC-8s that you see are the re-engined/stretched versions. I think it was the -60 series. Boeing made the strategic decision not to re-engine/stretch the 707 (though they looked very hard at it). They did re-engine the military versions but choose not to certify the changes. Rich From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >It's a question of engine noise. The DC-8s that you see are the >re-engined/stretched versions. I think it was the -60 series. A DC-8-61/62/63 re-engined with CFM56 engines is a DC-8-71/72/73, respectively. However, the ones you see in service are not *all* re-engined versions -- I still regularly see DC-8s with the older Pratt JT3D engines, and just the other day I saw a picture of a DC-8-54F with hushkits on the original engines. The CFM56-powered 70 Series is the most popular, of course, but they're far from the only ones left. -- 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 Jan 27 02:45:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company In article , Merlin Dorfman wrote: > A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the >number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s. > A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been >a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS, >yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline >707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines. > Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service >up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? Actually, there are over 400 707's still in active commercial service. Most are third world because they are Stage 1 howlers. There is a kit to put the CFM56 engines on the '07, but it is tres expensive. Something on the order of $12Mill if memory serves... Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:56 From: Vince Wayland Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cray Research a division of Silicon Graphics, Inc. Merlin Dorfman wrote: > > Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service > up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? I believe it's because there is a re-engining mod for DC-8s that makes them more fuel efficient and compliant with the noise regs. I never heard of such a kit for the 707. A United captain on one of them told me that it was the most efficient plane at that time. The modified stretch DC8s on United were one of my favorite planes, as a passenger, of all time. Right up there with the B-720. -- Vince Wayland - Onsite at The National EPA Supercomputer Center for Cray Research, Inc.: NESC, 135 Washington St., Bay City, MI 48708 - Voice Mail (800) 326-1020, #53534 wayland@cray.com veg@nesc.epa.gov (517) 894-7671 From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:56 From: bizfixer@aol.com (Bizfixer) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com CFM-56 engines on DC-8s allow them to meet current noise requirements and are also very efficient. As far as I know, hush-kits for the 707 are marginal on noise and the old engines so equipped are very fuel-inefficient. I believe USAF re-engined some 707s (AWACS?), but too expensive for commercial use. Rgds, bizfixer@aol.com From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:56 From: amb@bronze.lcs.mit.edu (andrew m. boardman) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Quiche Eaters Anonymous Merlin Dorfman wrote: >A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been >a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS, >yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline 707). >But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines. >Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service >up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? There are only 87 707s remaining that are registered in the U.S. (a pretty even mix of -1xx and -3xx models), and indeed, it's been a while since I've seen a civilian version in motion in the U.S. I was in Athens last year, though, and they were reasonably common; I remember lots of Air Afrique operations, especially. (And just as noisy as you might remember, with, if I recall correctly, the original JT3Ds. Ouch!) I'd assume their scarcity on the home soil is the usual matter of noise and efficiency. Can anyone here speak definitively on the hushkitting and reengining options for the 707s vs. DC-8s? (There are a pair of 707s registered to "Quiet Skies Inc." in CA, which I assume is working on hushkit options. Still, an amusing owner after my Athens experiences.) andrew From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:56 From: erikg3@aol.com (ERIKG3) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com 707's are in service- -with the U.S. Air Force as the VP's Air Force Two -With MEA of Lebanon -With some African airlines -With (I think) TAROM of Romania I recall that no stage 3 engine was developed for the 707, but is available for the DC-8. Perhaps this is the reason? -Erik From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:56 From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Your Organization > A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the >number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s. > Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service >up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? I think it is because the DC-8s were reengined with CFM-56 enginees. The 707 was never reengined with CFM-56s, like the KC-135s were to make the KC-135R. If I remember correctly, Boeing was looking into reengining 707s in the late 70s or early 80s here in Wichita about the time they were doing the KC-135R program, but decided not to because it would reduce their new aircraft sales. From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:56 From: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: adaptative wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) shaped the electrons to say: >I know that back in the mid-1980s Boeing was working with NASA to develop >an adaptive wing. They were using (I believe) an F-15 for this work at >Edwards AFB. One of our producers went to Edwards several times in the F-111 I believe. The F-111 MAW program - Mission Adaptive Wing. -MZ -- Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com For support requests: support@livingston.com Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588 From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:56 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >>I suppose that the moral of the story is never go for a shit on an >>Airbus!!!! Last September I saw an article in the BA in-flight magazine specifically praising the wonderful new A320 high-tech toilet that used the pressure differential to shift shit! 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 Jan 27 02:45:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:56 From: ee3carb@ee.edinburgh.ac.uk (C.A.R.Beveridge \(Colin\)) Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Electrical Engineering Department, University of Edinburgh In article , pl20@pixie.co.za (Peter Little) writes: |> On 7 Jan 1997, a South African Airways A320 [Flight SA327] flight |> from Johannesburg to Cape Town, the pilot had to decrease altitude in |> order for a 9 year old child to be pulled free from the toilet by a |> doctor that was on board after it had sucked her in. ... |> Two questions arise from this :- |> 1. How does an unaccompanied minor find herslf in such a position - |> especially in Business Class? Probably was sitting on the lav, without the seat, and pressed the button which would then suck the person right in (the seal between body and loo would be avoided using the seat). Answer to part b is rich parents! |> 2. What was the reason to decrease altitude in order for the passenger |> to be freed from the toilet?? Are the toilets at a different pressure |> to that of the rest of the cabin? The place where the "stuff" goes is a vacuum tank. |> I would be grateful for any technical explanation of the incident. I |> suppose that the moral of the story is never go for a shit on an |> Airbus!!!! This has happeneded before, with adults usually, on 767s, DC8s, and others. -- Colin A R Beveridge Microelectronic Engineering The University of Edinburgh United Kingdom http://www.ed.ac.uk From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:56 From: "Brian A. Reynolds" Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Gary Moffitt wrote: > > > On 7 Jan 1997, a South African Airways A320 [Flight SA327] flight > > from Johannesburg to Cape Town, the pilot had to decrease altitude in > > order for a 9 year old child to be pulled free from the toilet by a > > doctor that was on board after it had sucked her in. > > Two questions arise from this : > I am highly skeptical of the incident descibed. The child would have to > fall completely into the bowl and seal the outlet completely for the > described incident to have occurred. Urban folklore rumors the same to > have occurred to extremely obese using vacuum toilets, I have never seen > one of these cases substantiated. Good point Gary. One primary difference between an urban legend and fact is the use of verifiable names, dates, and other evidence; inlcuding s pecifics. Soooo.. here goes. (Not It think that this is the 'mother source' of all the stuck on toilet stories floating around. - start story - At 1700 GMT between Jan Smute and Kane at 18,500 feet Capt. JA Dademan (traveling supernumbery) reported to me in the cockpit that an 'old lady was screming becasue she was dtuck down on a tourist lavatory seat and the hostess could not free her.' Thinking the joke was in rather poor taste, I made some derogatory commend intending to dismiss the matter. However, this merely served to change Capt. Rademans's already eranest expression to one of alram at my lighthaeartness, and I realized soemthing might well be seriously amiss. A further verbal exchange convince me: but what shoud be done to free her? Emergency depresurization at 18,500 feet would be rather dramatic, so we decided to try increasing cabin altitude to reduce the pressure differential between the inside and outside of the toilet pail. At our altitude there was a presure differential of all but five pounds per square inch. Over a total approzimate area of 80 square inchs (the area of the top of the pail), it ment that she was being sucked down by an equivalent weight of 400 pounds, in addition to her own weight. It is small wonder that Miss Hoorn, travel hostess, who together with a lady passenger had been trying to help, remarked afterwards: "Gee, I tried my best to pull her off but I wasn't strong enought. Before cabin pressure had decreased appreciably, news of a dramtic rescue was brought to the flight deck by Capt. Rademon, who was, by this time, quite excited and fully absormed in his self-appointed role as a purveyor of profress reports to the cockpit. His nes was to the effect that we had an undaunted strong man in the crew. First Officer Lamprect had succeeded , by a process of doubling the harassed lady forward and pulling also, in dislodging her to the accompaniment of loud sucking noises as air rushed by to equalize the pressure. Mr. Lamprecht exclaimed afterwards that he had first attempted to lift her, but this was impossible and only caused emarressment. "She was a firm as a rock' he said. Next, in order to obtain the leverage to double her forward and pull at the same time, being tall, he placed on foot against the compartment wall behind the lady, and with hsi arms around here, succedded in wrenching her free. The cause of the trouble was that Mrs. Huston had seated herself directly on the metal part of the toilet pan without first lowering the seat. When apologizing to Mrs. Huston afterwards when she had recovered from her experience, she remarked that she was 'terrified of being sucked right through and out os the aircraft as I had no parachute.' Also: 'I thought that my insides were being drawn out.' Fortunately she was very good humored after the event, but no amount of explaining what had gone wrong would induce her to visit the toilet again unaccompanied. Something need to be done about these toileast as they may be even more dangerous to childers. To prevent a recurrance of this nature we have drilled five quarter inch holes with half-inch spacing just forward of the hinge line of the seat and covered these with a joggling strip revited to the container to prevent the holes from beincoming blocked. -end- This was an SAS DC-7B, and while the story is not dated, it is stated to have occured during the introductory period of the DC-7B into service. I have heard this story retold many times, but never with this level of detail, therefore I do tend to believe this is a true account of a real incident. In more modern vacuum toilets (the one in the DC-7B is more like a porta-potty in the sky), I don't believe that it would be possible to become 'stuck on the john' for more then a brief period of time. Brian From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:57 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence Vaccume Toilets, some horrible facts. They are a pain in the backside, particularly for us poor people who have to maintain them. The 747-400 has four systems, the 767 three, each with 3 or 4 toilets. If the loads are light a 747 may fly with one system out but never with two missing, so a fix is a must. This is not as rare as you might think and its very galling for us to have an otherwise fit plane dead with such a snag. On the Boeing system differential pressure is the driving force and sends the 'goods' down to the holding tanks at the rear of the aircraft. For ground and low level operation, up to 14k ft, there is a powerfull fan system to provide suction. When you hit the button a small squirt of water comes in at the top of the bowl, if needed the blower cuts in and a gate valve opens for a few seconds and woosh, the supersonic turd is on its way, or not as the case may be. Electronic sensors cut the toilet operation when the relevant tanks are full. Failure modes are many and varied, stuck open gate valves are not common but it looks like that is what happened to the little girl, somthing can also fall in and jam open the valve. The pipes can block and it can take ages to locate the blockage, days in one case recently. Often they are caused by those little pots of facial cream from the goody bags they giveaway up front. If the upper deck are blocked, opening the pipes on the main deck can result in gallons of you know what all over the place. Difusers that spread the goods around in the tank as they arrive have a habit of breaking free and blocking the pipe to the dump valve, at the bottom. The inlet pipe has to come off for a top dump, you hope the tank is not too full ! Also some hero has to reach inside and try to hook up the offending diffuser. The dump valve release cables break, the valves freeze up, both cases the freight floor has to come up, now we have a quick lifting panel with slack screws but it was not this way at first. The fans die somtimes but you can fly this way, just keep the seatbelt signs on a bit longer untill diff pressure is strong enough. The fan relays somtimes short and put 115v onto the tank electronic boxes and kill two on one side, the relays are carefully hidden down a hole but at least its a clean job. Now you see why we hate working on them, remember there are all the diseases of the world in those pipes. One day Boeing will get around to fully developing the system ! We all have fund of stories about the system to relate to the squeamish, over dinner. Me, I do my best not to go at all when I am flying, well maybe a crafty pee. I might get my own back. Tootle pip ! -- _J_O_H_N____R_E_L_P_H____________ john@guava.demon.co.uk From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:57 From: Robert Nafe Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services If the toilet dump valve fails it will cause a neg pressure at the toilet. A person on the toilet generally cover the entire seat. A heavy/large person will cut off most vent air around the seat and the pressure will be on their bottom. This is not the first time this has happened and may not be the last. It dosen't happen very often. Bob From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:57 From: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe pl20@pixie.co.za (Peter Little) shaped the electrons to say: >1. How does an unaccompanied minor find herslf in such a position - >especially in Business Class? Children can go to the bathroom on their own by that age. >2. What was the reason to decrease altitude in order for the passenger >to be freed from the toilet?? Are the toilets at a different pressure >to that of the rest of the cabin? They flush using vaccuum. Usually this is just allowing the lower external pressure through. Descending would reduce the pressure differential. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. -MZ -- Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com For support requests: support@livingston.com Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588 From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:57 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 777 Tail wag fix References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , jetwayne@vonl.com wrote: > Does anyone know what Boeing ever did to fix the tail wag problem with > the 777? I don't know that it ever had one, but in any event, these things are pretty easy to correct these days using the flight control software and fly-by-wire system. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:57 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Laser-Velocimeter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Are you perchance referring to the Ring Laser Gyro system used in modern Inertial Referance Systems? TheFNG From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:57 From: matthew_harrison@bio-rad.com Subject: Re: Misconceived Mammoth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bio-Rad MicroScience UK Reply-To: matthew_harrison@bio-rad.com In , simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) writes: > >Ah, but then they would be much safer than a 747, because they would not >have the potential of the centre wing tank exploding. Are centre wing tanks more prone to explosion than tanks elsewhere? Wouldn't a tank exploding anywhere on a plane (in the air) mean compulsory farm purchases for all on board anyway? Matthew Harrison, Software Engineer, Bio-Rad MicroScience UK. (Hemel Hempstead) From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:57 From: ostreger@aol.com (Ostreger) Subject: Re: Misconceived Mammoth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk The reason a mammoth can be a mid-wing is that the mainspar conveniently pass through the fuselage - I'd guess best between forward and rear pressure cabins. There are extra pressure bulkheads, but these can spread the wing/fuselage interface loads, which has to be done anyhow. The main undercarriage bogie fits in between - not in those draggy fairings, and there's room for a central fuel tank above. Ditching poses different but not worse problems; the higher engine pods are less liable to dig in, with nasty consequences. And fly-by-wire and rearward CGs ease the V-tail snags. From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:57 From: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Misconceived Mammoth References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe ostreger@aol.com (Ostreger) shaped the electrons to say: >Why is the A3XX Omnibus not a V-tail mid-winger? 1. V-tails spook the public. The same reason commercial aircraft are kept symmetrical. Did you know Boeing considered a 727 design with engines on the wings and ONE SIDE of the tail? The tested it on the 367-80 and it worked fine. But it was not well received by those who didn't undertand engineering, so it wasn't taken very far. The only widespread aircraft the average flyer may have seen with a V-tail is the Beechcraft Bonanza. 2. Midwingers are hated. The wing carry-though must pass through the cabin at some point. The gap between the upper and lower decks is not think enough for a wing box - so it will intrude. Also, you have maintenence to think of. The same reason high-wingers are not popular would apply - harder to access the wing from the ground. A low wing means only the baggage area is interrupted. It means the public will accept the design. It is a better known quantity. It will save costs over its lifetime with maintenance. And I'd like to see your research that would prove the midwing would be so much better for *this particular design*. -MZ -- Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com For support requests: support@livingston.com Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588 From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:57 From: "Hans Jakobsson" Subject: DC-8-63 package freighter - conversion question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AlgoNet Public Access Node, Stockholm After counting the World's remaining DC-8's (267 acc to JP 96/97), it surprised me that there is only one DC-8-63 in passenger configuration flying in the world today - a 250-seater of Rich International. I then began to wonder; how big a conversion was the -63 (or any other DC-8) subject to when it was rebuilt into a package freighter? The windows were plugged and the cabin was ripped out, AFAIK. If these are the only changes, it wouldn't be impossible to convert it back to passenger config, would it? Or am I wrong? Regards, Hans Jakobsson -- Hans Jakobsson Airline Consultancy e-mail: hansj@algonet.se www: http://www.algonet.se/~hansj/ From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:57 From: koala@earthlink.net (Randy Treadway) Subject: UPS Weekend Passenger Service (was: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F) References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zip News Reply-To: koala@earthlink.net 1jnb@worldnet.att.com (J Berry) wrote: > UPS is rolling out PASSENGER service this yr >They have ordered roll-in seating (decked out nicely) to utilize their >planes for weekend leisure travel. One problem that I would have a >difficult time overcoming: NO WINDOWS, of course. > Those of us who have flown in military C-130's, C-141s, C-5s, etc will have no problem with this. i.e.- the idea flying "Space-A" was to get where you want to go (or fairly close) cheap, or actually 'free' for all intents and purposes. We were willing to do without windows, make do with a chicken or sandwich box lunch and sit in web seats with earplugs stuck in our ears for long periods of time (like San Fran to Honolulu on a C-130 !, or Tokyo to Seattle on a C-141). So, I will definitely be interested in the UPS weekend passenger offerings if they are cheap, they go where I want to go, and if seats are indeed available. Will I need to bring my own earplugs? Randy Treadway From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:58 From: AIRJET CORP Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AIRJET AIRLINE NEWS DAILY http://www.alaska.net/~airjet Reply-To: airjet@alaska.net > >>Airbus proposed A300 600ST "BELUGA" to FEDEX and UPS but they refused > >>due to the cost and the poor return on investment. > > UPS prefers used (cheap) equip, anyway > Bought 757/767s new, but the vast > majority of the fleet is very used The Airbus Beluga wud not fit into the FedEx global strategy. They got rid of all the 747's which Fred Smith did not like. FedEx is primarily a small package carrier by far. While they do have some an occasional need for something large as the Beluga, there is not enough traffic to make it worthwhile and does not fit into their fleet plan made up primarily of 727 type and DC-10 and MD-11s. The Tiger merger presented a real challenge of fleet intergration primarily the DC-8's and 747's. From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:58 From: musjnd@gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services In article , 1jnb@worldnet.att.com (J Berry) writes: > I know its off-topic, but UPS is rolling out PASSENGER service this yr > They have ordered roll-in seating (decked out nicely) to utilize their > planes for weekend leisure travel. One problem that I would have a > difficult time overcoming: NO WINDOWS, of course. Actually, with UPS being based here in Atlanta, there was a fair bit of press concerning this. They do have roll-in seating (it's essentially a cargo pallet for people) and they plan to uncover the windows on the planes. This would mean, I guess, that they are only using planes that HAD windows to begin with ... And as you mentioned, the things are supposed to be REALLY nice to travel on ! - Jonathan Roddenberry, Asimov, Henson, Dr. Seuss, Mel Blanc, Friz Freleng ... Sigh ... From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:58 From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <32fe7206.4973594@news.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington In article <32fe7206.4973594@news.concentric.net>, Michael Butler wrote: >Actually Eric the high cockpit goes even further back to the Bristol >Freighter. I remember these being used in Wellington on a quick turn >around inter-island service. Palletised cargo was loaded through the >nose and unloaded through the tail door - or was it the other way >around? Not on a Bristol -- they just have the nose doors (and a passenger door near the tail). Maybe you're thinking of the Argosy, which was used for inter-island freight service by Safe Air until a few years ago, up until they gave up on air freight and stuck to maintenance services. (Safe Air flew Bristols too, but phased them out quite a long time ago. There's one preserved at a Nelson museum.) -- 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 Jan 27 02:45:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:58 From: Kuper Werner Subject: Re: L1011 vs. DC-10 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >American recently sold 14 >DC-10-10s to FedEx, with delivery at a rate of one per month. The >first delivery, in October, was N102AA, the third DC-10 off the >production line. November's delivery was N103AA (LN 5, the plane >involved in the 1972 cargo door incident over Windsor, Ontario). >Both of these planes had been taken out of service and stored at >Ft. Worth's Alliance Airport since 1993, but it looks like they'll >be flying for a number of years to come. (Except for the last of >the 14 planes AA will deliver to FedEx, all had been taken out of >service and stored.) > >FedEx is also getting all 36 of United's remaining DC-10-10s over >the next few years, including some very early ones. Here's what >the status is of the first ten DC-10s: > > 1 N101AA AA, stored MZJ (Marana, AZ) - broken up? > 2 N220AU Project Orbis (flying eye hospital) > 3 N102AA AA => FedEx 10/96 > 4 N1801U UA => FedEx, stored LAS (Las Vegas, NV) > 5 N103AA AA => FedEx 11/96 > 6 N1802U UA => FedEx, stored LAS > 7 N104AA broken up 9/95 (retired by AA) > 8 N1803U UA => FedEx, stored LAS > 9 N105AA AA => FedEx 10/97, stored AMA (Alliance, Ft. Worth, TX) > 10 N1804U broken up 10/93 (retired by UA) Some inside information: FedEx already received N103AA and N146AA. Guess what's next? Yep, N101AA, for delivery this month and N102AA for delivery next month. N105AA is not yet scheduled to join the FedEx fleet (it may never). From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:58 From: dbeauche@concentric.net (Dan@CanadaMB) Subject: Pratt & Whitney PT6 & PT6A Hot Sections Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: concentric I am looking for help with small engine (-27,-28,-21) hot section building tricks of the trade. I will collect all information sent and post it on my WWW page for all to refer too. I am also looking for different repair processes for Hot Section parts on -41, -42, -60, -62. All PT6 repair or assembly hints appreciated! THANK YOU AND SEE YOU SOON ON MY WEB PAGE dbeauche@concentric.net From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:58 From: 1jnb@worldnet.att.com (J Berry) Subject: Boeing Redirects Product-Development Efforts Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services SEATTLE, Jan. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing has decided to focus its near-term product-development efforts on enhanced versions of the 767 and 777. "Many customers are telling us that they plan to serve fast-growing travel markets with more long-range, medium-sized airplanes like the Boeing 777 and 767," said Ron Woodard, president of the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. "That's why we'll focus our near-term resources on further enhancements to these product lines. "We've been working with some of the world's largest airlines to develop airplanes capable of carrying 550 passengers and have developed an outstanding design for a new 747 family. These airplanes take full advantage of the latest technologies and meet all of our customers' performance objectives," Woodard added. "However, sufficient market demand has not yet developed to justify committing the significant investment required to develop larger versions of the 747." Boeing will continue studying airplanes capable of carrying more passengers than today's 747. "This remains one of the priorities of our product-development efforts," Woodard said. "When the market develops for such an airplane, we will be ready. "Airlines continue to express confidence in today's 747," Woodard added, noting that Boeing announced plans last year to double production rates of the 747 while securing 75 new orders for the 747-400. "We're confident the 747 will remain the world's preferred large airplane well into the next century." Earlier this month, Boeing began offering for sale a new version of the 767. The proposed 767-400ERX, which could enter commercial service as early as the year 2000, will be capable of carrying 303 passengers in a two-class configuration. Other new products under consideration include larger and longer-range versions of the 777. Potential versions of the 777 being studied are capable of non-stop flights approaching 10,000 statute miles (16,000 km) or carrying more than 400 passengers in a three-class configuration. The 747-400 provides Boeing with the base to extend the 747 family with potentially larger versions. Some employees will continue working to develop an airplane larger than today's 747. All other Boeing employees currently working on 747 development will be assigned to new jobs within the company during the next several weeks. SOURCE Boeing Co. From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:58 From: s_odle@earthlink.net Subject: Re: TCAS on Airbus A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. On 21 Jan 97 01:32:27 , "L.M.N. Peiris" wrote: >Could anyone tell if the traffic alert and collision avoidance systems >(TCAS) is fitted to all A340 aircrafts at manufacturing or whether it is >an option available for the airlines? > Both. From kls Mon Jan 27 02:45:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:58 From: kebab@primenet.com Subject: Re: First hijacked 777?! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet onat@turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Onat Ahmet) wrote: >An All Nippon Airlines 777 was hijacked yesterday(1-20), en route >from Osaka to Fukuoka. The hijacker was arrested shortly after the >plane landed in Fukuoka, and there were no casualties. >Is this the first time a 777 is hijacked? Yes this is the first time, unless you want to disqualify this incident since the hijacker commandeered the plane armed with a "fruit knife"! From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:22 From: ostreger@aol.com (Ostreger) Subject: Blended-body snag? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk How do the new blended-body airliners claim to handle pressurisation loads? I've been a flying-wing fanatic for decades and still I don't know how FW airliners can work. Yes, the aerodynamic advantages are real, and yes, modern avionics - fly-by-wire - take care of the stability snags. There's still pressurisation. The standard 8psi is upwards of half a ton per square foot - and those blended-body birds have around 3,000 square feet of cabin ceiling/floor. This means near on a couple of thousand tons is trying to tear one apart, distorting it and - critically - fatiguing it. (Conventional airliners have an equivalent problem, but their circular fuselage does not distort with pressurisation - though the Comet III exploded nonetheless!) Such loads can be handled, but the structure to do it this so heavy that the other benefits look to be totally outweighed. From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:23 From: Alan Wong Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM matt weber wrote: > > >Some people won't assimilate the information that are given to them. > >They are told Airbus's 2-4-2 economy configuration is more comfortable > >than Boeing's 2-5-2. They are also told Airbus's 2-2-2 business > >configuration is more comfortable than Boeing's 2-3-2. Some will accept > >these statements without even analyzing the information. That's what > >I meant by "some peple will believe what they are told to believe". > > > >IMHO, Airbus's claims are true only when the flight is more than 85-90% > >full. Otherwise, the wider seats should win. Wow! The extra inch or so in seat width really makes a difference! So much difference that if I wasn't told or didn't know beforehand that it was there I wouldn't even have noticed it. That's exactly how I felt recently in a "wide" A320. And the same thing goes for the argument that the widest point on an A320 is at waist level compared to shoulder level on the 737. Who's gonna get out their tape measure next flight and find there's an extra inch here and there and then feel good when it measures a meagre inch bigger? Having said that, for me, the seat configuration is immediately obvious and does play a large influence on comfort, even if it is only perceived. I also find business class more comfortable not because of the wider seats, but because seat pitch is larger and the seats are closer to aisles in general (eg 1-2-2 layout compared to 2-3-2). Hence I will say that 2-3-2 is better than 2-4-2 which is better than 2-5-2, irrespective of manufacturer. > Personally, I think this entire argument is academic. The people riding > in the premium cabins may or may choose an airline based upon comfort. I > suspect most make a choice based upon frequent flyer program! Precisely. Cattle class is cattle class, irrespective of the extra inch. From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:23 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Boeing/Macdac Flying Wing Superjumbo (was: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X was Re: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? References: <5c30f1$ptm$5@kragar.kei.com> <5c3dc4$kmj@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics I was at NASA Langley this past summer and saw the models of the manta ray shaped McDD design in question. Honestly, I thought it was some sort of military project. It looked very futuristic (whatever that means). If indeed this is what Boeing/McDD are working on (the Langley people called it an 800 seater), I fail to see how you'd a) put one at any existing airport gate or b) get that many people on/off of it within the space of one human lifetime. Pretty cool concept though...They could have tennis courts at mid-deck. Jennings Heilig From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:23 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , nospam@wagner.spc.videotron.ca wrote: > Will the [temporary] pull-out of the extra large 747s by Boeing impact > Airbus positively with regards to its equivalent A3XX project ? > > Is the market for such planes big enough for only one airplane at this > time, or is it even too small for that ? > > I do not wish to talk about financing of such a project, just about > market potential. > > If the market currently does not exist, will it ever ? If so, when ? A number of years ago, the majority of planes flying the Atlantic were 747s. That's what everyone seemed to want at the time, a high-capacity airplane. Today, the majority of airplanes flying the Atlantic are lower capacity twins, 767s, 777's, A-310s, etc. What has happened in Europe and the Americas has been a shift to travellers wanting a greater frequency of flights to meet their own business or vacation schedules. This has led the airlines to move away from a few flights with big airplanes to a lot of flights with smaller airplanes. While some people in Asia still see a need for planes even larger than the 747-400, industry studies and forecasts are showing that Asia is going down the same path as Europe adn America did several years ago. As the inherent mistrust of twin engine airplanes dies off in Asia, we are seeing the same thing we saw in Europe; a greater demand for more flights with more efficient (profitable) airplanes. Already, many Asian airlines are purchasing greater numbers of 767s, 777s, 757s, A-330s, and A-310s, than high-capacity 747-400s. The feeling among analysts (but who says they're always right) is that the real airplane market in Asia will be the medium capacity twins. One of the strongest factors that currently supports the need for airplanes with a greater capacity than the 747-400 is airport congestion and environmental concerns. Putting one airplane at the gate instead of two reduces noise, pollution, and airport congestion (not necessarily inside the terminal, but certainly in the air and on the ramp). But until environmental concerns outweigh the importance of greater profits, this factor alone will not be enough to warrant the development of very-high-capacity airplanes. Will the market ever exist? Impossible to say, but if the trend in air travel growth continues, there probably will be a market for a people-mover larger than the 747-400. As I said, there are a few airlines who would buy these airplanes today. They obviously feel they could fill them up. But right now, there are simply not enough airlines who definitely feel they could make money with these planes to cover the cost of their development and subsequently, their staggering purchase and operational costs. One thing you can count on, however, is that if a true market for these planes emerges, Boeing will have a plane to meet it. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:23 From: drdjp@accessone.com (Dave Paisley) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X was Re: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? References: <5c30f1$ptm$5@kragar.kei.com> <5c3dc4$kmj@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: accessone In article , Ian Judge wrote: > According to a UK newspaper the new Boeing jumbo may be a flying wing > design which will hold 800 in a double deck layout. It is a McD design > which is at the flying model stage funded to >>> $3billion <<< > by the > government. NASA/whoever are hoping to get more money to develop it > further! I suspect that the $3Billion was a typo, or misread! That's a hell of a flying model contract. dave From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:24 From: koala@earthlink.net (Randy Treadway) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X was Re: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? References: <5c30f1$ptm$5@kragar.kei.com> <5c3dc4$kmj@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: koala@earthlink.net Ian Judge wrote: >According to a UK newspaper the new Boeing jumbo may be a flying wing >design which will hold 800 in a double deck layout. It is a McD design >which is at the flying model stage funded to $3billion by the >government. NASA/whoever are hoping to get more money to develop it >further! I have seen this design. However, there are concerns about the cost of airlines having to pay for revamping their airport parking spaces, jetways, etc. Passengers would have to disembark directly from doors in the wing itself. One attractive thing, though is possibility of windows directly in *front* of the seated passengers blended in the leading edge of the wing. It's a huge thing- would be as revolutionary as the jumbo jets were in the late '60s-early 70's which forced airports to redesign their landing gates. This design won't really go far on NASA funds, - it needs some Boeing cash for any serious movement beyond the wind tunnel / computer modeling stages. I don't think the $3 billion quote is correct- it's a LOT less than that right now. Randy Treadway McDonnell Douglas, Long Beach From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:24 From: Frank Muenker Subject: 747 engine disintegrates Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: virtual identity GmbH Hi, just read that a Northwest 747 engine disintegrated during takeoff in Tokio. The start was discontinued safely. Does anybody have further information on that ??? Regards Frank Muenker From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:24 From: jmaddaus@gte.com (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Bristol Britannia's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GTE Labs Inc Used to fly into Greensboro, NC a lot. Seemed like there were always a number of 4-engined planes sitting at the end of the runway, some with some very key pieces missing. They looked like the old Bristol Britannia. Anyone know for sure? Also I never seemed to see any of them missing, i.e. presumably flying. Are they all derelicts and who owns them? Just curious. Thanks, John Maddaus jmaddaus@gte.com From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:24 From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: 777 Tail wag fix References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concord World Travel On 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 , jetwayne@vonl.com wrote: >Does anyone know what Boeing ever did to fix the tail wag problem with >the 777? A modal suppression, or high-rate damper system, similar to that fitted to the 757, 767 and 747, was fitted from September to correct yaw oscillation which occurred after the 777 encountered turbulence. -- Roger Chung-Wee Concord World Travel, 278 Wightman Road, London N8 0LX Tel: +44(0)181-342 8400 Fax: +44(0)181-348 0822 From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:24 From: "Kenneth Quek" Subject: Re: stretch DC-8 landing gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Niels Sampath wrote in article ... > Reading that the 767-400 will have to have raised main landing gear > posts to avoid tail strikes on rotation makes me wonder: did Douglas > do the same when they stretched the DC-8 to the -60 series? Apparently, the early DC-8 series (-10 to -50) had main landing gear which were tall enough to accommodate the stretch. This problem of needing to extend the landing gear for a stretch was partly why Boeing abandoned the stretched 707-700 competitor to the DC-8. Of course they were also already designing the 747! From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:24 From: Subject: Re: DC-8-63 package freighter - conversion question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Hans-There are several DC-8's that were "combi's" They have been left relatively intact and putting them into pax would not be a big deal. On the other hand, there are many DC-8's with Monarch and Rosenbalm doors that have been "buthcered" They would require extensive modification. The Douglas door aircraft would also require extensive re-conversion although not as great as the Monarch or Rosi door aircraft. Pete From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:24 From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP In article , Bizfixer wrote: >CFM-56 engines on DC-8s allow them to meet current noise requirements and >are also very efficient. As far as I know, hush-kits for the 707 are >marginal on noise and the old engines so equipped are very >fuel-inefficient. I believe USAF re-engined some 707s (AWACS?), but too >expensive for commercial use. The 707 was still in production for military variants until quite recently (six or seven years ago) was it not? Were these aircraft built with CFM56 engines from the word go? Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk "`I need every aluminum can you can find! And duct tape!" From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:24 From: jbela@csc.albany.edu (Jorge Bela-Kindelan) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University at Albany Two 707s serve as the Spanish equivalent to Air Force One (used to fly the Head of State on official trips). They are so noisy they need to obtain a special waiver from US authorities when traveling to the US. They replaced a DC-8 (sorry I cannot remember which one) that had frequent break-ups and became a source of concern. From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:24 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) So 707's are not [easily] hush-able.... But at one point 3 domestic airports had waivers. MIA was sure one -- the only way to tell what was abandoned in Corrision Corner and what was just parked RON was to look for inflated tires ;=| Do those waivers still exist? -- 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....................................20915-1433 From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:25 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories A number of people have written along these same lines: Bizfixer wrote: > > CFM-56 engines on DC-8s allow them to meet current noise requirements and > are also very efficient. As far as I know, hush-kits for the 707 are > marginal on noise and the old engines so equipped are very > fuel-inefficient. I believe USAF re-engined some 707s (AWACS?), but too > expensive for commercial use. I still don't think this is the whole or primary reason we see more cargo DC-8's in the US. Why? Because the majority of cargo DC-8's I see are powered not by CFM-56's, but by non-hushkitted P&W JT3D's, making them either rather loud Stage-II or quiet Stage-I aircraft (I believe they are Stage II, but I'm not sure). Both the 707 and DC-8 started life with the turbojet powerplants, P&W J-57 (commercially designated JT-3) or a larger P&W pure jet- the J-75/JT4 I believe, but I'm not positive. Starting with the 707-100B, the JT3D TurboFAN engines were used. I'm not sure which DC-8 first used these engines, and I'm neglecting a small number of 707's that got RR Conway engines. My point is that the "most common" configuration for both the 707 and DC-8 through the bulk of their domestic lives was to have JT3D low-bypass turbofans under the wings. Although some civilian DC-8's and now freight-carrying DC-8's received CFM-56 re-enginings, a lot are still out there with JT3D's just like many of the surviving 707's. However, most of the 707's now operate overseas carrying passengers. Thats why I think (not a fact, just my opinion!) that the DC-8 is more popular as a freighter here. Its less in demand elsewhere for passengers (cheaper to buy), has great freighter economics, and yes, it does have a certified upgrade "path" to CFM-56 engines- but thats less of a factor since having JT3D's does NOT severely hamper operations... YET! Now, Boeing did build and fly the 707-700 with CFM 56 engines, but decided not to market it commercially, although the later AWACS and foreign-sales military 707 derivatives were based on it (NOT on the KC-135, by the way!) I don't know what rules/certification requirements must be met in order to upgrade a JT3D powered 707 FREIGHTER to CFM-56's. Clearly it can and has been done for military applications and NOT for passenger applications. KC-135's are another ball of wax. Many were re-engined to JT3D's (Military TF33), and have since been re-engined again to CFM-56's. I've left out a lot, and probably got something wrong- the history of the 707 and KC-135 is truly a tangled web, and I'm going largely from memory :-) I recommend "Boeing Aircraft since 1916" by Peter Bowers for a good story of the evolution of the 367-80/707/717/KC-135/720 family as well as other Boeing aircraft. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:25 From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concord World Travel On 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 , drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) wrote: >In article , >Merlin Dorfman wrote: >> A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the >>number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s. >> A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been >>a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS, >>yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline >>707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines. >> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service >>up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? > >Actually, there are over 400 707's still in active commercial service. There are about 120 707s, mostly -300 freighters, still in commercial service out of 1,009 ordered and delivered. By comparison, there are over 250 DC-8s (out of 556 ordered and delivered) in service mostly as freighters. Some 110 have been re-engined with CFMI CFM56 turbofans which extended the life of this aircraft. -- Roger Chung-Wee Concord World Travel, 278 Wightman Road, London N8 0LX Tel: +44(0)181-342 8400 Fax: +44(0)181-348 0822 From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:25 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In Steve Lacker writes: - - - - - snip - - - - - >Also, I suspect that the first-line >operators of both aircraft held on to their 707's and ran them up to >higher hours than did DC-8 operators (not that the DC-8 isn't an >excellent aircraft, but it was decidedly less popular than the 707). The B-707 may have been more popular with the scheduled carriers, but, in the 70's, the majority of aircraft used by supplemental carriers were DC-8's. The only supplemental using B-707's back then was World Airways and they were in the process of changing over to DC-8's and DC-10's. I should have qualified "supplemental carriers" to read "U.S. supplemental carriers". For some reason, a high percentage of European supplemental carriers used B-707's. Go figure. The DC-8/63 had a MGTOW of 355,000 lbs as did some models of the B-707 (TWA's B-707BAH comes to mind). Lou. From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:25 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In "Richard Isakson" writes: > >> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service >> up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? >> - - - - - snip - - - - - > >It's a question of engine noise. The DC-8s that you see are the >re-engined/stretched versions. I think it was the -60 series. Boeing >made the strategic decision not to re-engine/stretch the 707 (though >they looked very hard at it). They did re-engine the military >versions but choose not to certify the changes. I think another consideration in re-engining the B-707 was the height of the existing engine off the ground. You can't add much more engine diameter to a 707 before the lower part of the cowling will be rubbing on the ground and, face it, the new engines are quite a bit bigger in diameter. There a few of the re-engined KC-135's at Bangor and those cowlings don't have much ground clearance. I just wonder, with the engines that close to the ground, if there is much of an increase in the amount of FOD? Lou. From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:25 From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Brian Maddison) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: >Actually, there are over 400 707's still in active commercial service. --- I don't think so. Flight magazine's census gives a figure of 136 in airline service worldwide. JP lists 218 including private, corporate, government and military. Another factor to be considered in the fewer 707 survivors compared to DC-8s is the acquisition by the US Air Force of over 100 airframes from the airlines in 1981-4. These were bought for use as a source of spares for the KC-135 fleet. Many of the TWA and American 707s went this way. Were it not for this, presumably these would have ended up on the used market along with the DC-8s which of course the USAF had no use for. Most have been scrapped over the years, but some are still lined up in rows at AMARC storage in Tucson. Brian M From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:25 From: "Mark A. Brown" Subject: Mid-wing airliner designs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 2:45 +0900 97.1.27, Ostreger wrote: >The reason a mammoth can be a mid-wing is that the mainspar >conveniently pass through the fuselage - I'd guess best between forward >and rear pressure cabins. Fighter designs sometimes employ large ring-shaped load carry-through structures so that the engine(s) can fit down the middle. I suppose these would intrude into the cabin but one could always use this section for galley or lavatory. Mark. Mark A. Brown, STA Research Fellow National Aerospace Laboratory, Control System Division 7-44-1 Jindaijihigashi-machi, Chofu-shi, Tokyo 182, JAPAN From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:25 From: "Bobby G. maynard" Subject: Re: UPS Weekend Passenger Service (was: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F) References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: bmaynard@worldnet.att.net Randy Treadway wrote: > > 1jnb@worldnet.att.com (J Berry) wrote: > > UPS is rolling out PASSENGER service this yr > >They have ordered roll-in seating (decked out nicely) to utilize their > >planes for weekend leisure travel. One problem that I would have a > >difficult time overcoming: NO WINDOWS, of course. Story In Local Paper (Louisville CJ) Said that the windows would be uncovered for the charter flights. BTW, someone posted that they would be using all their planes for this service. Not so just the 727s which they do not use on the weekends. bmaynard Louisville, KY From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:25 From: John Hall Subject: What did I see? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eastman Kodak Company January 24 at about 11:00 AM I was driving down I-190 in Niagara Falls, heading for Canada. I saw what appeared to be a small transport on final for the NF airport/Air Force base. As it got closer, it got wierder. It had a fuselage extension that stuck out below and head of the the cockpit, containing what appeared to be a second cockpit. There were tall fences or control surfaces projecting up and down from the wings, at about mid-span. I confess, I was so boggled seeing this, (and trying to drive on the Interstate at the same time) that I didn't see what it had for engines. I believe the fin was relatively unswept and rounded, like on the old Convair turboprops. Anybody got a clue as to what this was? A flying cockpit simulator of some kind? Civil? Military? John Hall john@kodak.com From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:25 From: gerhard Subject: Re: V speed list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OnRamp Technologies; ISP; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA The Aviation Forum on America Online has just such a list in the Info Center. Check in the Aviation Codes... collection. V1 - takeoff decision speed V2 - takeoff safety speed V2min - minimum takeoff safety speed Va - design maneuvering speed Vb - design speed for maximum gust intensity Vc - design cruise speed Vd - design dive speed Vdf - demonstration dive speed Vf - design flap speed Vfe - maximum flap-extended speed (top of white arc) Vh - maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power Vle - maximum landing-gear extended speed Vlo - maximum landing-gear operating speed Vlof - lift-off speed Vmca - minimum control speed with critical engine out out of ground effect (red radial line) Vmcg - minimum control speed with critical engine out during takeoff run Vmo - maximum operating speed Mmo - maximum operating Mach number Vmu - minimum unstick speed Vne - Never-exceed speed Vno - maximum cruise speed (top of green arc) Vr - rotation speed Vref - reference speed for final approach, normally 1.3Vso Vs - stall speed Vso - stall speed in landing configuration (bottom of white arc) Vsse - minimum safe single-engine speed Vx - best angle-of-climb speed Vxse - best single-engine angle-of-climb speed Vy - best rate-of-climb speed Vyse - best single-engine rate-of-climb speed From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:26 From: asomers@primenet.com (Andrew Somers) Subject: Re: V speed list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Myndex In article , cb61@aol.com (Cb61) wrote: > I'm looking for a comprehensive list of V-speeds and their meanings. > Any help appreciated. > > thanks Here they are: Va -- design maneuvering speed. This is the speed where a stall will occur before the load factor will exceed strucural limitations. Thus, maximum deflection of the controls may be performed and/or turbulent air may be encountered safely. Note however that severe and extreme turbulence and wind shear may create increases in airspeed which will exceed Va, thus using a lower than Va speed may be indicated in these conditions. Also, as stall speed increases with weight, Va increases with weight as well. Vfe -- maximum flap extended speed. The flap operating range corresponds to the white arc on the ASI Vle -- maximum landing gear extended speed Vlo -- maximum landing gear operating speed Vne -- never-exceed speed. Exceeding this speed can result in flutter, structural failure, and general bad things happening. This is the red line on the ASI Vno -- maximum structural cruising speed. Also, the top of the green arc on the airspeed indicator. Don't exceed this speed except in smooth air. Vr -- rotation speed. I.e. the point where you rotate on takeoff. Vs0 -- the power-off stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration (i.e., flaps and landing gear extended) remember this as: VSO = V Stuff Out Vs1 -the power-off stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed obtained in a specified configuration (i.e., flaps and landing gear retracted) remember this as: VS1 = V Stuff In NOTE: stalling speed increases with weight and load factor Vx -- speed for best angle of climb. Greatest gain in altitude for DISTANCE flown Vy -- speed for best rate of climb. Greatest gain in altitude for TIME flown Vglide -- best glide speed. Greatest distance flown with power off. Hope this helps Andy Somers Student Pilot -- The Universe is VERY VERY simple but FAR FAR too complex for the human mind to comprehend. -- AMSomers 1988 Andy's Home Page: http://www.primenet.com/~asomers From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:26 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: V speed list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The comprehensive list is found in the FARs - I'm sorry, I don't have my FAR/AIM handy, but I believe it's in section 1.0 - Definitions and abbreviations. In any case, here's the most frequently used collection: V1 - Takeoff decision speed. At normal acceleration, it is assumed that by the time the airplane reaches this speed it has eaten enough runway that there is no longer enough room to stop safely. In short, at V1 you are committed to takeoff. Most takeoff-related accidents are the result of a decision to abort a takeoff after V1 speed is attained. VR - Rotation speed. Most large airplanes will not takeoff unless the nose is raised to 2-5 degrees. Vr is the speed at which this is done. It is usually 3-5 knots above V1, but never below it. V2 - This is the minimum safe flying speed with flaps in the takeoff configuration. VSTALL - Amazingly enough, this is stall speed. VX - This is maximum climb angle without regard to engine cooling VY - This is maximum rate of climb VYSE - This is maximum rate of climb with a single engine (e.g. an engine failure on a twin - engine airplane. VREF - This is the minimum safe approach speed with full landing flaps. I'll forward a referance to the appropriate AFR next chance I get. If you don't want to wait, just pick up a copy of the FAR/AIM book at any pilot's shop or mail order catalog. -the FNG TheFNG From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:26 From: jetwayne@vonl.com Subject: Re: V speed list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. cb61@aol.com (Cb61) wrote: >I'm looking for a comprehensive list of V-speeds and their meanings. Sorry, I can't help with a comprehensive list. Try FAR part 1.2 for some basic V speeds and FAR part 25.335 for some more obscure ones. Personally, I get the feeling that some V speeds are simply made up as needed by the Feds and by the manufacturers. From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:26 From: domk1031@mailszrz.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: V speed list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Technische Universität Berlin cb61@aol.com (Cb61) wrote: >I'm looking for a comprehensive list of V-speeds and their meanings. >Any help appreciated. 1. FAA FAR Part 25 2. Ruijgrok, G.J.J.; "Elements of Airplane Performance"; Delft University Press, 1990 Burkhard Domke TUB Aero& Astro From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:26 From: kennyc@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Kenny Cromwell") Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Compulink Information eXchange In article , bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) wrote: > It is my understanding that Airbus aircraft do not have the capability > to jettison fuel. A330/A340 have the capability to jettison fuel........... Kenny From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:26 From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights In article , "Brian A. Reynolds" writes <> >Hi Pete, sorry, have to agree with Mike. FAR 25.1001 Fuel jettisoning >system. (a) A fuel jettisoning system must be installed unless it si >shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of 25.119 and >25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight >of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, >go-around, and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane >configuration, speed, power, and thrust thte same as that used in >meeting the applicable takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance >requirements of this Part. Landing gear is addressed in 25.721 and the >requirements deal with the adequacy of the landing gear, reserve >capability, and testing. What you have put forward is the FAA's view on aviation. Please bear in mind that this view is not necc. reflected round the rest of the world. A very large proportion of the world do not operate under FAA rules, but rather under their own civil aviation authority regulations. Nor do F.A.R.'s enter into the Flight Crew's consideration when faced with a large aircraft that is able to take-off at 1.3 times it's maximum structural landing weight due to the large amounts of fuel we carry. If the question was why do large aircraft have to dump fuel, then I still believe I am correct: in order to get down to max. structural landing weight. >It is my understanding that Airbus aircraft do not have the capability >to jettison fuel. I haven't heard that one before. Where did you hear it? It doesn't sound correct. I suspect that the A340, for example, being a long-range machine, must have a max. landing weight lower than max t.o. weight, and they would therefore need to dump fuel if something went wrong after take-off. Mind you, they are French, aren't they? The French seem to be a law unto themselves most of the time. -- Pete Finlay pete@meads.demon.co.uk Boeing 747 Senior Flight Engineer From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:26 From: jdk@apk.net (John Knopp) Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Hackers Association Pete Finlay wrote: > I don't think I've ever had a performance landing weight below max. > landing weight. I find that somewhat hard to believe! Shorter runways and conditions "less than that of a dry runway" cause the maximum landing weight to be reduced below structural limits on many occasions (a recent journey to Chicago Midway with cross winds and fair/poor braking action comes to mind - no matter how hard I try to forget it! ). -- John Knopp jdk@apk.net DC-9 Cleveland, OH From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:26 From: Tom Stybr Subject: Re: First hijacked 777?! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing - Wichita Division kebab@primenet.com wrote: > > onat@turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Onat Ahmet) wrote: > > >An All Nippon Airlines 777 was hijacked yesterday(1-20), en route > >from Osaka to Fukuoka. The hijacker was arrested shortly after the > >plane landed in Fukuoka, and there were no casualties. > > >Is this the first time a 777 is hijacked? > > Yes this is the first time, unless you want to disqualify this > incident since the hijacker commandeered the plane armed with a "fruit > knife"! And he was drunk, too. So it would have just been a matter of time before he had to whiz and accidently cut off his kiwi with the fruit knife. -- Humor, just humor. (Or devoid of) Tom From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:26 From: shahid siddiqi Subject: Northwest Airlines Icing related problem IAD Jan 27 6:30pm EST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: as&m Reply-To: s.a.siddiqi@larc.nasa.gov Hi newsgroupers I was flying out of National yesterday at about 6:15 pm EST in a Mooney (general aviation single engine airplane) and we heard the following exchange on the Washington Control frequency, if anyone has details please pass on to newsgroup: A Northwest Heavy (don't know type of airplane, must have been a DC-10 or 747) called requesting lower altitude because de-icing could not be accomplished. Controller cleared them for 7000 ft. Then the pilot requested 5000 and a place to dump fuel so as to return to Dulles to be able to land. The whole exchance was calm on both sides, I think an emergency was declared and 13,000 lbs (I think that's what I heard) of fuel (almost 2,000 gals Wow that's $1,200 enough of a fuel bill to do my Mooney for 10 flights @ $2 /gal Av GAs) The dumping was done near Gaithersburd MD and the controller warned all traffic to stay away from the area because of fuel in the air. Two questions for the conesenti: 1 - Icing was a problem yesterday above 8,000 feet in the Washington area that's why I was cruising at 5,000. Had the 747 dumped fuel above a cloud layer with icing would that have affected, at least for some time, the icing hazard in that cloud for other airplanes? 2 - How long does the Jet A take to evaporate and not be a hazard if some other airplane comes by. (Hazard as in take an airliner takes in the air mixed with kerosene into its cabin air inlet as well as a small airplene like mine flying through it and perhaps injesting it into the reciprocating engine and having a detonation problem) From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:26 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) writes: >Here we are aruing about comfort in the enconomy cabin. Most if not all >of the passengers down the back are there on the basis of price. All other >things being equal, they will pick comfort, but in general, they are not >willing to pay an extra cent for it. You can treat them incredibly badly, >but if you have the lowest fare,they will come back for more almost always. >I've never understood it, but I've seen it so often it isn't funny. You don't understand it? Tell people that they are going to have to sit in a chair for 3 hours... they can have a smallish chair or they can pay an extra $150 and have a larger chair. Very few people are willing to spend that type of money for a marginal increase in comfort lasting only a few hours. Would you pay an extra $100 added to your movie price to spend those two hours in roomier seats? or in a theater with fewer seats per row? The reason they call it "business class" is because the bulk of people in it are not paying for their own ticket. The reason they call it "first class" is because it has more to do with your image and feeling pampered than a rational decision about confort per dollar. ... at least that is my opinion. Terry Schell From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:27 From: Jean-Francois Mezei <"nospam<-jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: nospam@wagner.spc.videotron.ca C. Marin Faure wrote: > Industry surveys taken on board or immediately after de-planing show that > the vast majority of passengers have no idea of what kind of plane they're > riding on, who made it, or how many engines it has. Nor do they care I have a hard time beleiving these "industry surveys" apply to the industry in general. I can understand passengers not knowing/caring about plane type for shuttle-type flights (high frequency, short hop) where the planes are almost all narrowbody with 3-3 or 2-3 seating. Secondly, the type of aircraft is always mentioned during safety briefings and is shown in the safety card in front of each passenger. Perhaps little known brand names such as MD-nn don't stick to people's minds, but they would remember a 747, DC10 or DC9 for sure. I have a hard time beleiving that a passenger would not know the shape of a 747 sitting at the gate. Or not notice the number of seats and aisles inside. Even if the passenger does not remember the exact type of aircraft he was on, he will remember its inside layout. ("Oh, its that long narrow tube of 3-3" or "or, it is that sardine can with 5 people stuck in the middle"). While I agree that few passengers know in advance which plane they will use, and many may not remember the name of the airplane type they used, I suspect many remember their experience inside with regards to comfort. If travel agents had better itinerary printouts, passengers would be better informed. Many seem to only print "Widebody jet service" From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:27 From: ericb@ripco.com (Eric Basile) Subject: Re: First DC-9 Active Noise Control System Approved By FAA References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ripco, Chicago's Oldest Online Information Service GeoffNich (geoffnich@aol.com) wrote: : The Federal Aviation Administration approved the installation of Lord : Corporation's NVX Active Noise and Vibration Control System in the DC-9 : Series of aircraft. ... : The NVX Active Noise and Vibration Control System makes the rear of the : DC-9 cabin as quiet as the front. This should be a welcomed relief for : passengers. I have a picture of an old FAA project called "FAA Quiet Nacelle." It appears to have been installed on a DC-9. How does this new project compare to that old one (and other noise reduction initiatives, for that matter?) Sincerely, Eric Basile From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.piloting,sci.electronics.design Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:27 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: The LAAS proposal for GPS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zip News In a 116 page briefing, the FAA has described a local area augmentation scheme (LAAS) for GPS in the airport terminal area. The concept is proposed to provide unavailability of 1 in 100,000. This level of availability is achieved with pseudolites, GLONASS or WAAS. It proposes antenna configurations to mitigate multi-path, such as helical bowl and stacked dipole. It notes unwavering support for the VHF nav band ( 108-116MHz) to carry the uplink. It looks to the community to define the ground system interface to the aircraft: on the one hand robust enough for Cat III, on the other, affordable by GenAv. (Extracted from a piece by Paul Prisaznuk in 'AeroLine', Arinc's monthly newletter of airline electronics engineering, available in electronic form. ) The URL is http://www.arinc.com/Ind_Govt_Srv/AEEC/Aeroline.html Regards brian whatcott Altus OK From kls Thu Jan 30 00:36:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Jan 97 00:36:27 From: Bill Chivers Subject: Re: Turboprop startup speed question (long) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chivers Consultants In article , McElravy writes >So: turboprop people, what's the word? (I'm sorry my message was as long as >the ATP startup, but I was trying to make a point.) Don't know details of the ATP, but a possible reason for the long time between starts could be that they were delayed by something, like an ATC clearance, minor snag needing referral to the minimum equipment list, or delivery of a loadsheet. In circumstances such as that, when cabin temperature is uncomfortable (in this case probably too cold), since no APU, we start an engine to get an airconditioning pack going for passenger comfort. Incidentally, on that topic, on the ATR the engines have a free power turbine. We have a prop brake on Number 2, allowing the engine to be run for DC and Bleed Air, without the prop turning. When ready to go just start number 1 and release the prop brake and off we go. Bill Chivers ATR F/O From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:21 From: richard@rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Jean-Francois Mezei <"nospam<-jfmezei"@videotron.ca> writes: >I have a hard time beleiving these "industry surveys" apply to the >industry in general. I can understand passengers not knowing/caring >about plane type for shuttle-type flights (high frequency, short hop) >where the planes are almost all narrowbody with 3-3 or 2-3 seating. etc etc. JF I think you are crediting the average travelling public with too much interest in the plane type. Remember that you, I, Karl, Helen et al have a specific interest in the plane we're on. Some even care what variant of PW4000 they've got or if it's a 747-451 or -422 (in UA's 747-400 fleet case). Let's take my mother as a fair example of your average travellor. She does maybe 2 business trips a year short hall (ie: MEL-SYD) which will be in a QF 737, 767 or A300(-B4). Once per year (usually) she does a big trip - international, and will def. have a 747-400 and perhaps a 767 or other smaller type. She doesn't care. You'd think that having her son aviation mad (me) and her partner an aerospace engineer for many years who has certified many aircraft for Australian use (DC-2 up to the D10 and 747-200) she'd be a bit more cluey as to aircraft. All she knows is a 747 is the "one with the hump"(!) and that's about it. Last year we flew together on a 767-300 (BA) LHR-SVO yet after returning and I had mentioned something about liking the 767 cabin layout she said "have I ever been on one of those?" My mother's biggest thrill is to see one of QF's pained up 747's because it makes her feel more Australian and she is so proud of the Kangaroo on the tail. I don't fly QF at all. My mother is average. My brother is worse! He flew TG to Delhi a few years back on a MD-11 and thought it was a 747. I said "3 engines and no hump" and he had no clue :) I doubt many business fliers care what variant they are on as long as it gets them there. Obviously I know a fair number of people who do care, and will change their schedule to get say a 777 or 747 transcon in the US or something like that, but in general many people don't care. In fact on the first commercial 777 flight I was on June 7, '95 with all the TV crews, Boeing employees and whatnot on board, sitting next to me was a guy who "just wanted to go to Washington" and didn't even know or care what the big fuss was about. He said to me "what's so special about this plane anyway?" (!) -richard -- Richard A. Muirden, RMIT ITS Snr Unix Systems Admin: Web+News+Post -Master mailto: richard@rmit.EDU.AU phone: 9660 3814, Fax: 9663 5652 Likes: Shostakovich (133 CD's), 'planes, sci-fi, cats, romance, cuddles and... http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:22 From: "Julian H. Lloyd" Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A user of Pacific Internet Reply-To: lloydj@ix.netcom.com > Wasn't there once mention here of an unusual seating arrangement > by Gulf Air(?) with a single row of seats in the middle? I also > remember , before the A320 went into service that there was talk of > offering it as twin aisle with a 2-1-2 arrangement, albiet with > (cough) -narrow- aisles. I love the 777 from several good transatlantic experiences on it, but I recently had the opportunity to fly on one of Thai's intra-Asia 777s - the seat configuration was 2-4-2 in Business Class! What a nightmare - I think that it shows that most of this argument would be better directed at airlines than manufacturers. Any of the aircraft under discussion in this thread can be configured in a variety of ways that increase or decrease passenger comfort, and have a corresponding revenue implication, presumably. Blaming the aircraft design is missing the point. Regards, JHL From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:22 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry In article C. Marin Faure (faurecm@halcyon.com) wrote: > > Industry surveys taken on board or immediately after de-planing show that > the vast majority of passengers have no idea of what kind of plane they're > riding on, who made it, or how many engines it has. Nor do they care. That's my impression, too. > Primary concerns are ticket cost and schedule convenience. Of the very > few people who are aware of the type of plane they're on, most of them are > in business or first class, which makes sense, as these travellers are > generally a little more picky about their air travel experience. I think this is only true for short-to-medium-haul flights. If the majority of people in cattle class only care about cost, then Taiwan's EVA Air should have failed miserably. Most people would not mind paying a little extra for long-haul flights. Unfortunately, on most airlines, the fare differential between Economy and Business class ticket is too big. EVA Air's Evergreen Class (most people still use the old name -- Economy Deluxe) offers eight-abreast seating on their B747s. The price difference for a consolidator ticket is about US$100 on their Trans-Pacific flights. I believe they are doing quite well. In fact, they are doing so well that their biggest competitor, China Airlines, frequently has to offer two-for-one business-class ticket promotions. Since they started flying across he Pacific five years ago, both United and Northwest have cut their services to Taiwan by half. Also, Delta totally dropped out of the market. (Thus, I don't think they did well because the market was under-served.) From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:22 From: gerwocii@aol.com (GERWOCII) Subject: MD-80 Fueling Quirks Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Mabey someone can awnser this. Why is it that most of the MD-80 fueling panels cannot be operated in the auto fill mode. When you program them for the specific fuel amounts they allways under fill the tanks. Also why is it on some of the MD-80s you have to be real carefull about when you shutoff the valves becuase the amount will float 200-250 pounds. Yet on some it does not float at all. From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:22 From: john1082@aol.com (John1082) Subject: Re: What did I see? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com An outfit named "Calspan" had an old Convair which is used as a test bed. I believe that it was known as an NC-131 at one time, but I could well be mistaken. The bird was used for R & D work. It was owned by the Air Force and bailed to the contractor. The AF may have sold the airframe to Calspan eventually. I didn't think that it was still flying. John Gezelius Alexandria, VA From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:22 From: Gregory.A.Addington.4@nd.edu (gregory addington) Subject: Re: What did I see? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nd.edu In article , John Hall wrote: >As it got closer, it got wierder. It had a fuselage extension >that stuck out below and head of the the cockpit, containing >what appeared to be a second cockpit. There were tall fences or >control surfaces projecting up and down from the wings, at about >mid-span. What you saw is an old Convair transport (the former AF designation escapes me at the moment, but I think it was C-12x) that has been transformed into a flying simulator. Yes, there is a cockpit in the protrusion from the nose. The a/c has been modified with a fly-by- wire system with programable gains so that it will "feel" like something much bigger (or smaller) to the simulation pilot. >I confess, I was so boggled seeing this, (and trying to drive on >the Interstate at the same time) that I didn't see what it had >for engines. I believe the fin was relatively unswept and rounded, >like on the old Convair turboprops. You think that's weird... At least at one point (and I don't know if this is still true), the front cockpit detached and could be replaced with a radome. The interior was transformed into a classroom, and the whole thing was used for nav training! > Civil? Military? Air Force owned, Calspan operated (at least a couple of years ago). __ Gregory Addington Doctoral Candidate, Dept. of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering University of Notre Dame email: Gregory.A.Addington.4@nd.edu www: www.nd.edu/~gaddingt From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:23 From: Anandeep Pannu Subject: Re: What did I see? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, School of Computer Science John , No doubt you saw the Convair NC-131 variable stability aircraft of the US Air Force Test Pilots School. This aircraft is used for training test pilots and trying out the test characteristics of new aircraft. It has a regular cockpit in which the safety pilots sit and the test pilots are in the extended nose cockpit. The software translates the pilots inputs and makes the plane behave as though it is a different plane. For example it could be made to resemble the F-16s responsiveness (by magnifying the pilots pitch, yaw and roll inputs) and sink rate etc. The fins are there to give sufficient side force response so that this resemblance is more realistic (after all the Convair can only do so much). I was under the impression that the Convair had been retired and that the USAF Test Pilot's School was using a variable stability F-16 these days. Did you happen to see what was on the sides of the plane? Any one else know about the current operators? Anandeep -- Anandeep Pannu Project Manager Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pannu From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:23 From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: What did I see? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA On 30 Jan 97 00:36:25 , John Hall said: J> January 24 at about 11:00 AM I was driving down I-190 in Niagara J> Falls, heading for Canada. I saw what appeared to be a small J> transport on final for the NF airport/Air Force base. J> As it got closer, it got wierder. It had a fuselage extension that J> stuck out below and head of the the cockpit, containing what J> appeared to be a second cockpit. There were tall fences or control J> surfaces projecting up and down from the wings, at about mid-span. J> I confess, I was so boggled seeing this, (and trying to drive on J> the Interstate at the same time) that I didn't see what it had for J> engines. I believe the fin was relatively unswept and rounded, J> like on the old Convair turboprops. J> Anybody got a clue as to what this was? A flying cockpit simulator J> of some kind? Civil? Military? You saw the USAF NC-131 TIFS, the Total In-Flight Simulator. It's a heavily modified Convair 580. This plane belongs to the Air Force Materiel Command and is operated under contract by Calspan Advanced Technology Center in Buffalo, NY (just like the NT-33A and NF-16D VISTA in-flight simulators). They do most of their flying at IAG, Niagara Falls Airport, because it's not very busy and it has a nice long runway. Those fences on the wings are side force generators. The TIFS is a 6-axis variable stability airplane and it's used mostly for handling qualities research. Unusual looking, isn't it? That evaluation cockpit slung on the front can be removed and a radome-looking nose installed. In this configuration the plane has lots of avionics and weapons systems gear and can be used for systems training. For more information, you can read "One-Of-A-Kind Research Aircraft" by Steve Markman and another fellow. Steve manages the TIFS program and will be glad to make the plane available for your handling qualities research programs. The cost is fairly reasonable, too. (The TIFS is the only one of the Calspan owned or operated aircraft that I haven't flown in; I gave up my slot to a co-op and then got bumped by an astronaut for the rest of the program.) -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html For personal messages, please use shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:23 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: stretch DC-8 landing gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Kenneth Quek wrote: > > Apparently, the early DC-8 series (-10 to -50) had main landing gear which > were tall enough to accommodate the stretch. This problem of needing to > extend the landing gear for a stretch was partly why Boeing abandoned the > stretched 707-700 competitor to the DC-8. Of course they were also already > designing the 747! Point of clarification- the 707-700 first flew in 1979, at which time the 747 was not only fully designed but flying all over the world. I assume you typo'ed 747 instead of 757. The 707-700 was shelved because the 757 would offer the same sort of performance/capacity with better economics. To quote 'Boeing Aircraft since 1916' by Bowers: "Model 707-700- This single aeroplane was used by Boeing as a test-bed for the new CFM-56 turbofan... Aside from testing the CFM56 engine, Boeing planned to offer new 707-700s with CFM56 engines to the market and to upgrade existing 707s through kits consisting of new engines and nacelles. This programme was not carried through in view if the fact that upgraded 707s would reduce the market for new Boeing Model 757s. The kit conversion idea was taken up by Douglas, however, which extended the service life of some DC-8s with new power packages. Although Boeing did not apply the CFM56 engine to further civil 707s, it did adopt that power plant to some military 707 variants, specifically KC-135s converted to KC-135Rs and to newly built KE-3As and E-8As. * The 707-700 first flew as such on November 27, 1979. After completeing the CFM56 test program, the aeroplane was converted to a 707-3W6C with P&W JT3D engines and delivered to the government of Morocco in 1982. This was the last delivery of a commercially-configured Boeing 707." *Note from my foggy memory- the KC135 is technically not a 707 airframe, but a 717 though both derived from the original Dash 80 prototype. The KE-3A and E-8s as well as all later military 707 variants are actually derived from the civil 707, not the military KC-135. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:23 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: stretch DC-8 landing gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Kenneth Quek wrote: > Apparently, the early DC-8 series (-10 to -50) had main landing gear which > were tall enough to accommodate the stretch. This problem of needing to > extend the landing gear for a stretch was partly why Boeing abandoned the > stretched 707-700 competitor to the DC-8. The 707-700 (a 707-320 with CFM56s) first flew in the late 1970s and the last DC-8 was produced in 1972. Hence, the 707-700 wasn't a DC-8-61/62/63 competitor. Boeing legend has it that when the 707 was originally designed, they didn't know how tall to make the landing gear. In the end, they decided to put the entry door sill height at the same level it is on a DC-7. This resulted in a landing gear that was too short to allow a long fuselage stretch. Douglas, on the other hand, used a much taller landing gear and were able to stretch their fuselage substantially. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:23 From: michael.f.lechnar@boeing.com Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams In article Pete Finlay writes: >In article , "Brian A. Reynolds" > writes > ><> > >>Hi Pete, sorry, have to agree with Mike. FAR 25.1001 Fuel jettisoning >>system. (a) A fuel jettisoning system must be installed unless it si >>shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of 25.119 and >>25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight >>of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, >>go-around, and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane >>configuration, speed, power, and thrust thte same as that used in >>meeting the applicable takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance >>requirements of this Part. Landing gear is addressed in 25.721 and the >>requirements deal with the adequacy of the landing gear, reserve >>capability, and testing. > >What you have put forward is the FAA's view on aviation. Please bear in >mind that this view is not necc. reflected round the rest of the world. >A very large proportion of the world do not operate under FAA rules, but >rather under their own civil aviation authority regulations. > >Nor do F.A.R.'s enter into the Flight Crew's consideration when faced >with a large aircraft that is able to take-off at 1.3 times it's maximum >structural landing weight due to the large amounts of fuel we carry. > >If the question was why do large aircraft have to dump fuel, then I >still believe I am correct: in order to get down to max. structural >landing weight. You are both right. But dumping fuel for performance purposes is the law and dumping to get below max landing weight is just a convenience. Overweight landings require a structural inspection before the next flight. I don't know the exact requirements, but it's probably more than a fair trade to dump the fuel to save the expense and time of the inspection. I also acknowledge the consequent improvement in landing speeds and handling. Regarding the FAR's "limited" applicability outside of the U.S.: Yes most of of the world has their own aviation authority. However, almost all of them have pretty much rubber-stamped either the FAA, CAA or JAA flavors of the rules. The rules on approach and landing climb requirements are not significantly different between them. There are some additional requirements imposed by the CAA such as "reduced visability climb" which also come into play. The bottom line is that you can't schedule a landing weight that does not simultaneously satisfy both the climb requirements and landing field length requirements. Typically twin airliners are never limited by landing climb performance. At max takeoff weights, the fuel burned during the turnback to the airport (return to land) will take the weight below the performance limit. As twins get bigger, such as the 777 and 767-300ER, fuel jettison systems have had to be added because the 15 minute fuel burn is not enough. Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:23 From: National Aero Safety Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Aviation / Industrial Safety Services Reply-To: nataero@wwisp.com Louis A. Ramsay wrote: > > In "Richard Isakson" > writes: > > >> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service > >> up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? > >It's a question of engine noise. The DC-8s that you see are the > >re-engined/stretched versions ... > I think another consideration in re-engining the B-707 was the > height of the existing engine off the ground. You can't add much more > engine diameter to a 707 before the lower part of the cowling will be > rubbing on the ground ... Isn't it also a factor that the Douglas DC-8's being the superior product, are less prone to corrosion that the Draconian Boeing 707's? All kidding aside, it is my understanding that Douglas put more effort into corrosion protection. The DC-8 is also a newer design. Ralph D. Livingston From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:23 From: John Ahrens Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Test Systems Reply-To: john@misfit.ca.boeing.com Roger Chung-Wee wrote: > [snip] > > There are about 120 707s, mostly -300 freighters, still in commercial > service out of 1,009 ordered and delivered. -----------------^^^^^ this isn't quite right as the last one out of Renton in 1991 (an E6 for the US Navy) was line number 999. -- I don's speak for Boeing. -------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Ahrens | You can't control the wind john.l.ahrens@boeing.com 94-26 | But you can adjust your sails. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:23 From: ecla@world.std.com (alain arnaud) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA : >In article , : >Merlin Dorfman wrote: : >> A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the : >>number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s. : >> A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been : >>a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS, : >>yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline : >>707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines. : >> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service : >>up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? I remember reading somewhere that the 757 has the same fuselage than a 707. If so can't we say that 707 are still flying though with new electronics and engines? Alan Arnaud From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:24 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I remember reading somewhere that the 757 has the same fuselage >than a 707. Above the cabin floor, the 727 and 737 have the same basic fuselage design as the 707, and the fuselage in the cockpit area is likewise the same. Below the floor they have a different cross-secion and there are other differences such as a thicker skin on the 737 to handle a higher cycle life. The 757 is similar but is at least an updated design due to newer certification rules and materials. >If so can't we say that 707 are still flying though with new >electronics and engines? And a new wing, new tail section, new cockpit area (based more on the 767 than the older Boeing narrowbody designs), new landing gear, new flight controls ... there are many similarities in design philosophy and thus a strong family resemblance from many points of view, but that's about 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 Fri Jan 31 14:29:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:24 From: JJBIVNG@HOTMAIL.COM (Joe J. Budion, IV) Subject: Re: UPS Weekend Passenger Service (was: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F) References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Budion Family Reply-To: JJBIVNG@HOTMAIL.COM >BTW, someone posted that they would be using all their planes for this >service. Not so just the 727s which they do not use on the weekends. They are only using 5 B-727's to start out with. Joe "FedEx Wizard" From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:24 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: Northwest Airlines Icing related problem IAD Jan 27 6:30 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >2 - How long does the Jet A take to evaporate and not be a hazard if >some other airplane comes by. (Hazard as in take an airliner takes in >the air mixed with kerosene into its cabin air inlet as well as a small >airplene like mine flying through it and perhaps injesting it into the >reciprocating engine and having a detonation problem) You'd be surprised how much kero a recip can burn with little obvious change in operation. A couple of years ago, on the left side of the continent, a major refinery distributed avgas blended (unintentionally) with jet fuel (kero). At two airports the resulting mixture serviced into GA aircraft was determined to be approximately 30% contaminated and to lesser degrees at four other airports...nearly 1000 aircraft probably received fuel from these airports, and most got new engines from the refiner, but there was no report of engine failure or even, to my knowledge, of much other than higher cylinder head temps noted by owners/operators. The refiner did, IMHO, the honorable thing in every case, honoring claims from operators who could show that fuel was purchased at any of the airports during the period contaminated fuel was dispensed. Tear down revealed very little...FAA had inspectors look at a number of the engines that were removed from aircraft...and most had very limited damage. So, the moral of this story is NOT to blend your avgas with kero or jet...and TO be conscious of changes in cylinder head temp and funny noises originating in the engine compartment...but flying through a fuel dump pattern may produce more risk in the cockpit than in the cylinders of your engine... And for the jet jocks...Boeing has a very interesting memo in distribution about the levels of tolerable contamination in jet juel...related to EPA and IRS dyes leeching into jet fuels during distribution in pipelines...virtually any red or blue color observed in jet fuel is sufficient to require defueling...and perhaps purging of filters etc...but if memory serves, the memo suggests that a 01-02% contamination of jet with home heating oil or dyed diesel would present so low a level of dyes as to be unobserved...and by default acceptable for use within the current fuel specification which requires that jet fuel be "water white" in a white bucket test. From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:24 From: William Sherriff Subject: Induced Pilot Error and Aviation Industry Ignorance Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services 12018 Caminito Campana San Diego, CA 92128 January 22, 1997 To: Aviation Industry: Subject: Induced Pilot Error and Aviation Industry Ignorance Examples: Engineers failed to include a pitot heat system on the "Kiel" probe of the X-31 aircraft that crashed after ice formed on the probe. Evidently they did not believe there was an icing problem in California? There have been at least three fatal accidents that I am aware of due to pitot-static system icing or blocking. The FAA has still not published a suggested technique for control of the aircraft under these conditions. The Boeing 737-200 series aircraft was designed with a short fuselage and the resultant short longitudinal moment arm requires a large rudder for control of the aircraft in an "engine out on takeoff" procedure. Because of the "uncommanded hard over rudder theory" as the cause of recent accidents involving the Boeing 737, there are now directives to modify and limit the allowable movement of the rudder. This rudder modification directive indicates the possible requirement for a change in the horizontal stabilizer design. The amount of stabilizer control is also affected by the short longitudinal moment arm and this factor makes the Boeing 737-200 series aircraft more susceptible to the "pitch-up" phenomenon! A "pitch-up" is a natural reaction of a swept wing aircraft design to a strong updraft. The vertical component of the relative wind moves the center of lift forward on the wing and raises the nose attitude. This happens on every landing when the aircraft enters ground effect and the weight of the aircraft compresses the air creating a more vertical component of the relative wind The classic example of the weather induced "pitch-up: and the resultant pilot induced upset accident is the Northwest Airlines Boeing 720B (8 feet shorter than a Boeing 707, a significant factor) fatal accident near Miami, Florida on February 12, 1963. After two years of investigation the Civil Aeronautics Board Report, (SA-372, File No. 1-0006 released on June 4, 1965) stated "The probable cause of this accident was the unfavorable interaction of severe vertical air drafts and large longitudinal control displacements resulting in a longitudinal 'upset' from which a successful recovery was not made." The Northwest Airlines crew had trimmed both the stabilizer and the elevators full nose down accompanied by a strong forward control force on the yoke upsetting the aircraft into a vertical dive. This was an experienced flight crew, the Captain had 17,000 hours and the Copilot had 11,000 hours flying time. I would predict that any flight crew would have reacted the same way under these conditions, having received the same basic training in impending stall recoveries. This report should be mandatory reading for pilots, especially those flying swept-wing design aircraft. The NTSB accident investigators and FAA personnel were not aware of this report and the NTSB requested a copy from me. I told them it was available right there in Washington, DC. The present prescribed approach and landing procedure require the pilot to mechanically control a "rate of sink" with the resultant minimum "control sense" feedback. In this approach, because of the nose high attitude required, the pilot does not have the landing area in sight in the final stage of the approach! In this approach procedure the inner ear sensitivity to a steady state rate of sink is greatly reduced. In an article published in "Physics Today" Dr. A. J. Hudspeth, PhD, MD of the Rockefeller Institute, states the following: "Constant velocity, e.g. a constant rate of sink, has little ability to stimulate." A Boeing Company study in the CAB report on the Northwest Airlines "upset" accident near Miami, Florida on, April 12, 1963, states the following: "The aircraft was recoverable from a 95-degree dive at 14,000 feet and 320 knots". >From my experience in a vertical dive (free fall) in a Navy fighter type aircraft I would challenge the Boeing Company to demonstrate the technique for a successful recovery of a swept wing transport type aircraft from a vertical dive. The Northwest crew had 35 seconds to recover from 19,000 feet! The aircraft came apart in the air! In this same report the following statement appears, "Entry into an updraft produces an initial aircraft response to 'weathercock' nosedown into the relative wind. However, it was pointed out that the ultimate effect of the updraft is an altitude and noseup attitude increase." In 36 years of flying I have never experienced any aircraft design pitching down in an updraft, initially or other wise. The aircraft accident investigators of the NTSB rely heavily on the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) readings to establish a "probable cause" for each accident. These readings however do not indicate the actual performance of the aircraft. They are the erroneous flight instrument indications affected by the strong updraft that caused the attitude transition. e.g., The reading in the Northwest Boeing 720B accident near Miami indicated a 9,000 feet per minute rate of climb! In the COPA Airline Boeing 737 accident near Tucuti, Panama the FDR recorded instantaneous, radical, attitude transitions that the Boeing Company stated were impossible for the aircraft to perform! In the Colorado Springs Boeing 737 accident, eye witnesses stated the nose was rising just before the aircraft pitched over into a dive,, (ATC controllers statement). The investigators refused to recognize indications on the FDR that the nose had risen because there was no increase in aircraft load factor indicated on the FDR! In a "pitch-up" there is little or no increase in aircraft load factor, as I experienced in an instantaneous "pitch-up" in a Boeing 707! I am a retired Navy and Airline pilot with 20,000 plus hours of flying time. I believe I am the only pilot that has experienced this particular combination of incidents. A "pitch-up" in a Boeing 707 in visual flight conditions, a true vertical dive (free fall) in a Navy fighter type aircraft, and a crash of a Boeing 707 simulator in an unofficial "pitch-up" exercise.. I have also used a "linear momentum" approach and landing technique, resulting in dissipation of excess kinetic energy prior to an imperceptible landing at less than the aircraft's actual weight. Until the industry addresses the problems associated with the "rate of sink" approach procedures, acknowledges the "pitch-up" phenomenon and provides the required pilot training programs we will continue to experience these accidents. Until this required training is completed if there is a finding of pilot error in these areas they must be referred to as "induced pilot error". William J. Sherriff Captain (Retired) American Airlines, Inc. From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:24 From: "Farok J. Contractor" Subject: Air China 747 Gets Stuck in JFK Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rutgers University Does anyone know how an Air China 747 got stuck in the mud at JFK? The news reports said that the plane was only taxiing and it veered of the taxiway into the mud. I think the pilots accidentally steered that way because there is no other explanation. From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:24 From: Brian Wiklem Subject: Emergency Landing/China Airlines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sony Interactive Studios Reply-To: brian_wiklem@interactive.sony.com On the news the other night, a China Airlines 747 (looked like a -200) made an emergency landing at JFK, and skidded off the side of the runway. Does anyone have any info? The news said that a cause was unknown, and nothing appeared in the paper... Brian From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:24 From: Meg Appleton Subject: C-130s and other military aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northern Michigan University Reply-To: randy@euclid.acs.nmu.edu I was curious if the C-130's and C-141's have any commercial utility. If someone gave them away, would they find productive use or would the operating costs be simply too high? -Thanks -Randy From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:25 From: James Buongiovanni Subject: Re: UPS Weekend Passenger Service (was: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F) References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberHighway Internet Services 1jnb@worldnet.att.com (J Berry) wrote: > UPS is rolling out PASSENGER service this yr >They have ordered roll-in seating (decked out nicely) to utilize their >planes for weekend leisure travel. One problem that I would have a >difficult time overcoming: NO WINDOWS, of course. I had heard that the FAA wasn't going to let the pax service start on 727's until they solved the problem with the new engines flaming out. Apparently Rolls-Royce is in the dark as to how to remedy the problem. Awhile back all three engines flamed out at the top of decent, they got two lit at about 2000 ft agl. Read about it on the NTSB's web site. Regards, From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:25 From: Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Robert Nafe wrote: > If the toilet dump valve fails it will cause a neg pressure at the > toilet. A person on the toilet generally cover the entire seat. Excuse me, my how many people sit down with the legs totally parallel (as opposed to being spread somewhat ?) And if legs are spread open to some extent, I doubt even more that a seal could be made. And even if the legs were not spread and a seal were made, spreading the legs should not be impossible and this would break the seal. Remember that when sitting down, one generally sits down far back enough to allow both liquid and solid orifices to dump their waste and in so doing, makes it even harder to form seal. And I won't even mention the fact that most people stand up to use toilet paper PRIOR TO FLUSHING. While it is possible that the flushing mechanism may have accidentally been triggered while the passenger was still sitting down, I really do not think that a passenger would have had much trouble breaking the seal him/herself. Then again, someone stupid enough to be in such a position might now have the brains to free her/himself. I still think that this is more urban myth. From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:25 From: Chris Hall Subject: Re: Bristol Britannia's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airborne Display Limited In article , "John S. Maddaus" writes >Used to fly into Greensboro, NC a lot. Seemed like there were always a number >of 4-engined planes sitting at the end of the runway, some with some very key >pieces missing. They looked like the old Bristol Britannia. Anyone know for >sure? Also I never seemed to see any of them missing, i.e. presumably flying. >Are they all derelicts and who owns them? Just curious. They could be CL-44's, a Canadair freighter version of the Britannia. -- Chris Hall From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:25 From: adopt Subject: Re: Blended-body snag? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArgoNet, but does not reflect its views Reply-To: adopt In article , ostreger@aol.com (Ostreger) wrote: >How do the new blended-body airliners claim to handle pressurisation >loads? >....This means near on a couple of thousand >tons is trying to tear one apart, distorting it and - critically - >fatiguing it. Not a technical answer... but do wonder if a design could be similar to a submarine. The guts of the passenger/flight crew pressure shell could still be cylinderical... although blended with the whole 'wing'. If part of the wing is used for passenger/pressurised cargo area... then could low level flight/slow(er) speed minimise the pressure differential? Would it need to have a significant increase in capacity to offset that 'slower' speed? Mind... that's using present construction materials. >(Conventional airliners have an equivalent problem, but >their circular fuselage does not distort with pressurisation - though the >Comet III exploded nonetheless!) Such loads can be handled, but the >structure to do it this so heavy that the other benefits look to be >totally outweighed. Are you sure it was the Comet III that exploded and not the original Comet (I)? In putting together the jigsaw puzzle of that accident.. and another.. the foundations of present day crash investigation were laid... and a better understanding of fatigue problems... although far from perfect... I would guess. :)) Bill ZFC -- A R G O N E T ---=================--- adopt@argonet.co.uk internet provider for all / Adoption InterLink UK Acorn RISC machines / http://www.argonet.co.uk/adopt From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:25 From: matthew_harrison@bio-rad.com Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bio-Rad MicroScience UK Reply-To: matthew_harrison@bio-rad.com Instead of Massively redesigning Airport gates, the undercarriage of the flying wing could be designed with the ability to steer in all directions. The wing could approach the gate crab-fashion. The engineering issues of dealing with the stress of landing and be fully steerable on the ground can't be insurmountable. And speaking of trends to more frequent mid-size flights, does anyone know the progress of the concept of tandem flights (2 planes take off from parallel runways for the same route. They each have a crew, but computers maintain a separation of less than a mile behind and to the side, so the planes fly in formation) Imagine the Red Arrows or Blue Angels (or "Angles" as I've seen on one panel at the Smithsonian ;?) doing a display with 747s .....:?) Matthew Harrison, Software Engineer, Bio-Rad MicroScience UK. (Hemel Hempstead) From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:25 From: attaboy101@aol.com (Attaboy101) Subject: AA JFK-LHR Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Forgive me if this has been covered already. I have noticed that American Airlines is flying some A300's on its JFK-LHR route, presumably replacing 767's. What factors would go into the airline's decision to make this change? Thanks. Geoff Clarkson From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:25 From: Dale B Rothert Subject: Cabin pressure at altitude Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: eNET Inc. - Internet Service Provider Reply-To: rothertd@1st.net Hello, I am interested in what the average cabin pressure is in a B-747 or similar aircraft at crusing altitued. Presumed crusing is in the mid to upper 30's. It would be helpful in inches of mercury but a ratio of interior to exterior would serve the purpose. Thanks. Dale From kls Fri Jan 31 14:29:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jan 97 14:29:25 From: m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk (Martin Fiddler) Subject: Re: ex Airbus Industrie Technic Manager accused References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Staffordshire University In article , mba340@club-internet.fr says... > >Bernard Ziegler, ex technic manager is accused in the case of A320 >Mont Saint Odile Crash in 92. it might be useful if you told us what he is accused of - could be anything from knowingly negligent design, of covering up or manipulating evidence, to failing to smile properly when interviewd afterwards on TV! Martin -- Martin m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:33 From: Andrew Weir <100637.616@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Bernard Ziegler Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Bernard Ziegler has only "sort-of" been charged by Mr Guichard, the investigating magistrate not only on Mont Sainte Odile crash of the A320 in Jan 92, but also of the Habscheim A320 accident in the same region. Ziegler has been "mis en examen", which means "put under investigation". In countries operating the Napoleonic code of justice material witnesses are often arrested or charged in this manner, and it carries significantly less import than the same words when applied to a common law system, like those of the US and UK. (Alitalia officials, for example, were convicted of murder in Italy over the ATR42 crash there in 1987, but never had to serve time, and were later cleared.) Ziegler's charge is more like a sub poena: the judge will interrogate him on the question of the ergonomics of the A320 cockpit displays. If the worst came to the worst, Ziegler, as the relevant official of Airbus, could eventually be charged with a form of manslaughter if the judge determines that failings in the cockpit ergonomics were the cause of the crash. This, however, seems fairly unlikely, even if the judge does decide to damn the cockpit ergonomics. It is generally accepted that the crew entered a 3,300 foot per minute rate of descent instead of a 3.3 degree flight path angle by failing to turn the panel knob from HDG/VS mode to TRK/FPA mode, but this explanation was worked out by deduction, and not from wreckage or flight data evidence. In the absence of direct proof this is what they did it would be hard to pin blame judicially on cockpit design. The judge in question also believes a major factor in the accident was Air Inter's failure to install GPWS on any of its planes at the time (it has now). He is also considering the inaccurate vector the tower controller gave the flight. One big open question that remains is whether he will fully investigate charges that coating materials used to prevent interference with the avionics affected VOR reception on this flight. BTW, it was, the rumour mill had it, his TV performance that led to his dismissal as head engineering honcho at Airbus. Not "not smiling" but making a hash of the company's position in a German documentary about Airbus safety. From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:34 From: miloro@cric.com (Scott Miloro) Subject: teeny vertical fins Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University at Buffalo I have noticed that a number of Boeing products have small (looks like 2 feet or so) vertical fins on the dorsal portion of the Fuselage. I know for sure I saw these on a VA B747-200 at BOS. Methinks they are on 757 type aircraft as well. So the question is...what are these things, and what are they doing? -Scott Scott Miloro Genome Therapeutics Corp. Waltham, MA 02154 standard disclaimers apply From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:34 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: AA JFK-LHR References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA > Forgive me if this has been covered already. I have noticed that American > Airlines is flying some A300's on its JFK-LHR route, presumably replacing > 767's. What factors would go into the airline's decision to make this > change? Thanks. AA is not replacing the 767 on European routes, it has just added the A300 to help increase schedualing versitality. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:34 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In Meg Appleton writes: > >I was curious if the C-130's and C-141's have any commercial utility. >If someone gave them away, would they find productive use or would the >operating costs be simply too high? There have been a few airlines that used C-130's for freighters. I know personally of their use at Alaska Airlines and I believe it was either Delta or American that used the "Herc" on regularly scheduled freight runs. Lou. From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:34 From: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe randy@euclid.acs.nmu.edu shaped the electrons to say: >I was curious if the C-130's and C-141's have any commercial utility. The C-130 is sold commercially as the L-100 and is in use with several airlines and cargo operations world wide. About 10 years back Lockheed was also looking at mating the basic Herc fuselage with a twin engine wing to make a short haul, lighter load cargo aircraft. I think that was L-400. But it looks like that project evaporated. There are L-100, L-100-10, L-100-20, and L-100-30 aircraft, each with an increasing fuselage length. The L-100 is basically the same build as the standard C-130H military model. And the RAF has C-130H-30s that are stretched like the L-100-30. -MZ -- Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com For support requests: support@livingston.com Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588 From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:34 From: James Buongiovanni Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberHighway Internet Services Meg Appleton wrote: > > I was curious if the C-130's and C-141's have any commercial utility. > If someone gave them away, would they find productive use or would the > operating costs be simply too high? Yes, Southern Air Transport flys a version, it is a stretched version. It is either the L-100 or L-182. From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:34 From: rstevens@worldsite.net (Ryan Michael Stevens) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Worldsite Networks, Inc. In article , roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) wrote: >On 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 , drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. >Drinkard) wrote: > >>In article , >>Merlin Dorfman wrote: >>> A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the >>>number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s. >>> A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been >>>a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS, >>>yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline >>>707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines. >>> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service >>>up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? >From what I recall, most of the servicable 707s fleets were purchased by the Air Force for parts to upgrade and support the KC-135. The larger vertical stabilizer and the JT3D engines (turbofan as compared to the KC-135's turbojets) were the most sought after items, in addition to (possibly) the landing gear. This arrangement was beneficial to both parties, with the Air Force receiving a large quantity of parts inexpensively and the airlines being able to dispose of entire outdated and uneconomical fleets quickly. In talking to a friend of mine that works in the airline business, he mentioned that selling a used aircraft or fleet, especially to a third (or lower) level carrier, can sometimes be more trouble than it is worth. The purchasing airline quite likely needs spares, manuals, training, overhauls and maintenance, etc. In the case of the 707 fleets being sold to the Air Force, they were relatively straightforward sales without the post sale support requirements and demands. Ryan From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:34 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics National Aero Safety wrote: > All kidding aside, it is my understanding that Douglas put more effort > into corrosion protection. The DC-8 is also a newer design. I'd beg to differ on that last statement. Both types were designed within a couple of years of each other in the early 1950s, and the 707 was in production (even the pax versions) longer than the DC-8. The last DC-8 was delivered in 1972. IIRC the last passenger 707 was delivered in 1975 or so. Jennings Heilig From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:35 From: Peter & James Liddell <72132.1641@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PSPP While there is no re-engining for the 707 that is comercially viable there is a "super"hush kit made by Comfan call Q-fan. MEA has reffited some of it's 707s in this way. -- Peter "All alone in the Lonely Land" From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:35 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In National Aero Safety writes: >Louis A. Ramsay wrote: >> In "Richard Isakson" >> writes: >> >> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service >> >> up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? >Isn't it also a factor that the Douglas DC-8's being the superior >product, are less prone to corrosion that the Draconian Boeing 707's? >All kidding aside, it is my understanding that Douglas put more effort >into corrosion protection. The DC-8 is also a newer design. My first DC-8 ride was in 1959. The 707 wasn't all that much earlier. I remember being told years ago that the 707 wing is prone to cracking, and good for only about 30,000 hours, while the DC-8 is overbuilt, and many have exceeded 100,000 hours. When UPS was in the midst of buying re-engined DC-8's, they looked at what it would take to fly them for another 20 years. They modernized the avionics. They also certified and installed a new autopilot - unprecedented in a transport category jet. It doesn't make sense to re-engine a plane with limited hours life - unless you are the USAF, with limited utilization. WRT DC8-70 series, I believe it is the CFM-34, and not CFM-56. RD From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:35 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >WRT DC8-70 series, I believe it is the CFM-34, and not CFM-56. The CFM34 is a GE engine in the roughly 9,000-14,000 lbs thrust range, used on the Canadair RJ and its cousins. Far too small for the DC-8, which uses CFMI's 22,000 lbs thrust CFM56-2C series engines on the Super 70 series. -- 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 Feb 3 03:16:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:35 From: "Damon Marcus Lewis" Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DML Enterprises Louis A. Ramsay wrote in article ... > I think another consideration in re-engining the B-707 was the > height of the existing engine off the ground. You can't add much more > engine diameter to a 707 before the lower part of the cowling will be > rubbing on the ground and, face it, the new engines are quite a bit > bigger in diameter. I think they had the same problem with the change from 737-1/200 to current generation 737's. The result, don't have a circular engine. The newer 737 engines appear flattened at the bottom. The engine accessories which would normally be there were moved to the side. The result was good ground clearance and a higher bypass engine. -- Damon Lewis From kls Mon Feb 3 03:16:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:16:35 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , nospam@wagner.spc.videotron.ca wrote: > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > Industry surveys taken on board or immediately after de-planing show that > > the vast majority of passengers have no idea of what kind of plane they're > > riding on, who made it, or how many engines it has. Nor do they care > > I have a hard time beleiving these "industry surveys" apply to the > industry in general. I can understand passengers not knowing/caring > about plane type for shuttle-type flights (high frequency, short hop) > where the planes are almost all narrowbody with 3-3 or 2-3 seating. > > Secondly, the type of aircraft is always mentioned during safety > briefings and is shown in the safety card in front of each passenger. > Perhaps little known brand names such as MD-nn don't stick to people's > minds, but they would remember a 747, DC10 or DC9 for sure. I'm sorry you have a hard time believing it, but the surveys are simply compilations of questions answered by passengers, and that's what they say. Most of them haven't a clue who made the plane they're riding on (they'll guess and sometimes get it right, but the odds are only 1 in three). Most passengers pay little attention to the safety speech, let alone remember what the airplane type is. But the interesting bottom line is that most passengers when queried directly DON"T CARE what kind of airplane they're on. If they don't care, they're not likely to remember the information even if it's presented in a safety briefing. These surveys have been conducted for years and years by the travel industry, the airline industry, and the airframe manufacturing industry. Every one of these surveys ends up with the same data: most passengers don't know who built the plane they're on, they don't know how many engines it has, they don't know what color it's painted, and THEY DON"T CARE. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:33 From: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca shaped the electrons to say: >Excuse me, my how many people sit down with the legs totally parallel >(as opposed to being spread somewhat ?) And if legs are spread open to >some extent, I doubt even more that a seal could be made. I'm 6'6" and built like a linebacker - I've been commonly described as 'intimidating'. I don't have a choice, the average airline lavatory is so cramped that my legs are *forced* together. I couldn't spread them with the jaws of life. And yes, it is rather annoying. >doing, makes it even harder to form seal. And I won't even mention the >fact that most people stand up to use toilet paper PRIOR TO FLUSHING. Yes, but not all. That's why this isn't common. >been triggered while the passenger was still sitting down, I really do >not think that a passenger would have had much trouble breaking the seal There would be several hundred pounds of force holding them in place - and this was a child. >him/herself. Then again, someone stupid enough to be in such a position >might now have the brains to free her/himself. How dare you call someone 'stupid' for this. It isn't that far fetched, and you don't have to be stupid for it to happen. Especially for a child, as they generally like to push buttons, etc. And since the average person can't be expected to know how the system works, you can't blame them for it. If you flush the toilet at home while still seated it doesn't do any harm, why should they expect a potential problem in the air? -MZ -- Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com For support requests: support@livingston.com Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588 From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:33 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA > > I am highly skeptical of the incident descibed. The child would have to > > fall completely into the bowl and seal the outlet completely for the > > described incident to have occurred. Urban folklore rumors the same to > > have occurred to extremely obese using vacuum toilets, I have never seen > > one of these cases substantiated. > > Good point Gary. One primary difference between an urban legend and fact > is the use of verifiable names, dates, and other evidence; inlcuding s > pecifics. Soooo.. here goes. (Not It think that this is the 'mother > source' of all the stuck on toilet stories floating around. > Before cabin pressure had decreased appreciably, news of a dramtic rescue > was brought to the flight deck by Capt. Rademon, who was, by this time, > quite excited and fully absormed in his self-appointed role as a purveyor > of profress reports to the cockpit. His nes was to the effect that we > had an undaunted strong man in the crew. First Officer Lamprect had > succeeded , by a process of doubling the harassed lady forward and pulling > also, in dislodging her to the accompaniment of loud sucking noises as > air rushed by to equalize the pressure. Lucky she didn't sustain the injuries the child had sustained, and what would our hero had done if upon removing her from the bowl he found, well you know all sorts of best left undescibed... I'd have to think the best couse of action would be to make an emergency descent to an appropriate altitude and equalize cabin and ambient pressure. Perhaps the airlines should have a special emergency procedure. Anybody working to remove someone stuck on a toilet should be prepared to handle the likely ensuing medical complications. > The cause of the trouble was that Mrs. Huston had seated herself directly > on the metal part of the toilet pan without first lowering the seat. This does explain how a perfect seal could be obtained between the bowl and body. > When apologizing to Mrs. Huston afterwards when she had recovered from > her experience, she remarked that she was 'terrified of being sucked right > through and out os the aircraft as I had no parachute.' Also: 'I thought > that my insides were being drawn out.' A very valid concern. > To prevent a recurrance of this nature we have drilled five quarter inch > holes with half-inch spacing just forward of the hinge line of the seat > and covered these with a joggling strip revited to the container to prevent > the holes from beincoming blocked. This is a damn good idea, economical, easily implemented and effective. > I have heard this story retold many times, but never with this level of > detail, therefore I do tend to believe this is a true account of a real > incident. In more modern vacuum toilets (the one in the DC-7B is more > like a porta-potty in the sky), I don't believe that it would be possible > to become 'stuck on the john' for more then a brief period of time. Well, Brian, I guess I am convinced. Several other readers have also emailed me various vacuum toilet stories. So either they are true or urban folklore has been taken to a new level. Thanks. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:34 From: "Gerald M. Barca" Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Peter Little wrote in article ... > On 7 Jan 1997, a South African Airways A320 [Flight SA327] flight > from Johannesburg to Cape Town, the pilot had to decrease altitude in > order for a 9 year old child to be pulled free from the toilet by a > doctor that was on board after it had sucked her in. The child was > later admitted to hospital with external and internal injuries to her > private parts - which required surgery. > > This was reported today [8 Jan 1997] in The Natal Witness and on > national television - SABC News. > > Two questions arise from this :- > > 1. How does an unaccompanied minor find herslf in such a position - > especially in Business Class? > > 2. What was the reason to decrease altitude in order for the passenger > to be freed from the toilet?? Are the toilets at a different pressure > to that of the rest of the cabin? > > I would be grateful for any technical explanation of the incident. I > suppose that the moral of the story is never go for a shit on an > Airbus!!!! > > >Believe it or not.... We had a similar thing happen on a UA 767 when they first came out. This was the first aircraft with the vacuum-flush system. It involved a heavyset woman and flushing while seated. One of our favorite tricks as employees to show people how strong the vacuum is is to take the toilet paper and pull it across the cabin, placing the other end in the toilet and flushing. A couple of seconds and one WHOOSH later and all of the paper is gone. Back to our stuck lady...the vacuum pulled her loose flesh in and it formed a seal and she could not get free. The only way to relieve the pressure was to drop in altitude and depressurize, releasing the extra pressure on the lady and allowing her to pull free. Jerry Barca -- jerry barca jbarca@mindspring.com From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:34 From: Joules Potter Subject: Re: Blended-body snag? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Typhoon In article , adopt writes >In article , ostreger@aol.com >(Ostreger) wrote: > >>How do the new blended-body airliners claim to handle pressurisation >>loads? >>....This means near on a couple of thousand >>tons is trying to tear one apart, distorting it and - critically - >>fatiguing it. > >Not a technical answer... but do wonder if a design could be >similar to a submarine. The guts of the passenger/flight crew >pressure shell could still be cylinderical... although blended >with the whole 'wing'. Sounds like a good idea, maintain a pressurised semi-monocoque shell within the unpressurised remaining wing area. Nobody has yet mentioned fuel storage. A 747-400 can hold a max of 173000kg(382999lbs) of fuel, which should get it LHR-HKG for example. Taking into consideration new engine developments which lead to better fuel consumption, to have any sort of range this aircraft is going to have to carry, or have provision to carry, a lot of fuel. So where are they going to put it? What about the engines? Modern engines are tending towards higher and higher bypass ratios, can you imagine 4 next generation RR Trent/GE engines mounted internally? Quite apart from the size of the engine, the intake/exhaust ducting would be enourmous, having to pass through the length of the aircraft, disrupting the passenger carrying compartment and creating even more structural questions. > >If part of the wing is used for passenger/pressurised cargo >area... then could low level flight/slow(er) speed minimise >the pressure differential? Would it need to have a significant >increase in capacity to offset that 'slower' speed? Same old story, fly lower and slower costs more and reduces range, >>(Conventional airliners have an equivalent problem, but >>their circular fuselage does not distort with pressurisation - though the >>Comet III exploded nonetheless!) Round fuselage, square windows.... oops :-) Unless there are some real wayout advances in all aspects of aircraft construction, eg materials, engines etc, then this incredible flying machine IMHO will never get off the drawing board and into the air as a commercially viable passenger aircraft. It could perhaps go the way of Concorde instead. Rgds Joules -- Joules Potter Licenced Aircraft Engineer From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:34 From: "David Smith" Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <:> <32fe7206.4973594@news.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Michael Butler wrote in article <32fe7206.4973594@news.concentric.net>... > airline@flash.net wrote: > > > The high cockpit on a freighter actually dates > > back to British AirFerries' "Carvair", which was a prop aircraft > > modified to have the cockpit above the cargo deck, and clamshell doors > > on the nose... > Actually Eric the high cockpit goes even further back to the Bristol > Freighter. I remember these being used in Wellington on a quick turn > around inter-island service. Palletised cargo was loaded through the > nose and unloaded through the tail door - or was it the other way > around? When was the Bristol Freighter introduced? I don't suppose it antedated the Me 323 Gigant of WWII which had clamshell nose doors and a cockpit above the cargo hold? Or the Fairchild C-82 Packet of the late 1940s? David Smith From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:34 From: "Barry Oliver" Subject: Re: Cabin pressure at altitude References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICONS Software, Inc. Dale B Rothert wrote in article ... > I am interested in what the average cabin pressure is in a B-747 or > similar aircraft at crusing altitued. Presumed crusing is in the mid to > upper 30's. It would be helpful in inches of mercury but a ratio of > interior to exterior would serve the purpose. A rough number is 8.5 PSI differential. The cabin altitude would be at 7,000 to 8,000 feet. From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:34 From: nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: Cabin pressure at altitude References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Dale B Rothert wrote: >I am interested in what the average cabin pressure is in a B-747 or >similar aircraft at crusing altitued. Presumed crusing is in the mid to >upper 30's. It would be helpful in inches of mercury but a ratio of >interior to exterior would serve the purpose. At 35,000 or so, the normal cabin altitude on most current planes is a little under 8000 feet, and (on Douglas aircraft at least) the differential with outside is a little under 8.0 psi. If I'm not mistaken, the FARs mandate an ability to maintain a cabin altitude no higher than 8000 feet at the aircraft's certified max operating altitude. Neil - nw@ix.netcom.com From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:35 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Emergency Landing/China Airlines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Brian Wiklem wrote: >On the news the other night, a China Airlines 747 (looked like >a -200) made an emergency landing at JFK, and skidded off the side of >the runway. > >Does anyone have any info? The news said that a cause was unknown, >and nothing appeared in the paper... > It's an Air China International B747-200. China Airlines does not use B747-200 into JFK. Air China International (or just Air China) is the national carrier of the People's Republic of China and it is based in Beijing. China Airlines is based in Taipei, Taiwan. I don't know anything about this incident. However, there is another post in this group that has some information of this incident. From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:35 From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Re: Bristol Britannia's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Doubt very much whether they are Britannias - could they be Vickers Viscounts? Steve From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:35 From: "Matthew Kranz" <75162.520@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Bristol Britannia's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HLC/Epoch networks John S. Maddaus wrote in article ... > Used to fly into Greensboro, NC a lot. Seemed like there were always a number > of 4-engined planes sitting at the end of the runway, some with some very key > pieces missing. They looked like the old Bristol Britannia. Anyone know for > sure? Also I never seemed to see any of them missing, i.e. presumably flying. > Are they all derelicts and who owns them? Just curious. No, they're not Britannias. They are Canadair CL-44J's, owned by Tradewinds International. Tradewinds used to be Wrangler Aviation, who used the aircraft to ship denim to Puerto Rico and finished jeans back to GSO. (Or something like that.) I have not seen these aircraft take to the air in many years, but I do remember seeing them fly low over my house, their RR Tynes making more nose than the jets! It was beautiful. They now sit rotting in a corner of the airport, while Tradewinds only flies ther L-1011. --Matt Kranz, GSO F/E 727 From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:35 From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > Even if the passenger does not remember the exact type of aircraft he > was on, he will remember its inside layout. ("Oh, its that long narrow > tube of 3-3" or "or, it is that sardine can with 5 people stuck in the > middle"). Don't be so sure. I've talked to many people, most in my family, who don't even remember that. My mother is one. Mom can rattle off the first hundred subdivisions of the Dewey decimal system, but show her a picture of a plane, tell her what it is, show her another picture of the same type and she won't remember the name. However, passengers do remember comfort. Mom doesn't remember ANYTHING about the aircraft she was on during an Air Canada flight 25 years ago but remembers every item of food on her plate and remembers that it was the best airline food she ever had. If a passenger flies a 777 on United and has a great time, chances are the next time he flies somewhere and the fare is the same for United and another airline, the passenger will pick United even though the flight will likely be on another make. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com http://users.penn.com/~cpa1/gallery.htm From kls Mon Feb 3 03:18:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Feb 97 03:18:35 From: Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca C. Marin Faure wrote: > One thing you can count on, however, is that if a true market for these > planes emerges, Boeing will have a plane to meet it. Ok, Airbus talks about its A3XX almost as if the thing was already launched/flying. Boeing has done much work with regards to a jumbo jet, as well as the stretched versions of the 747 but decided to stop short of offering them for sale because of low market potential now. Obviously, Airbus can't really move ahead with its A3XX until it has financing. Just how much real work on the A3XX has Airbus done so far ? Is is it still just a concept plane with dream specifications hoping some engineers will be able to make them into reality ? Or has its technical feasibility been done seriously enough that it is more of a "project" than a "dream" ???? I would be interesting to compare how far ahead both the Boeing and Airbus projects are, irrespective of public relations exercises. Boeing did state that a few people would continue the work on the 747-500x and 600x, right ? Is such work going to progress at about the same speed as the work going on at Airbus for the A3XX (until it gets financing). ? Or will Airbus move much further along the path than Boeing ? Is it fair to assume that Airbus's A3XX at this point in time, is still much behind the 747-500x and 747-600x in terms of engineering work remaining ? Will Airbus be able to catch up if it continues at its current rate with the Boeing project during Boeing's hiatus ? Or put another way: Assuming both companies got what they wanted today (market for Boeing, financing for Airbus), which of the two would be first to market with revenus passengers, and how long before the other company acheives the same results ? From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:34 From: Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Recent news reports about TWA800 has shown one of the relatives speaking out on the 747-100 after a tour of the NTSB reconstruction site. He said that the plane was well past its planned lifetime and should have been retired years ago. What exactly does this mean ? Are planes designed to "expire" after so many cycles ? What happens to maintenance schedules and certification process once a plane acheives its expected lifetime ? In the case of the 747-100, are we talking here about a plane that long ago passed its originally designed lifetime but was granted extentions because it was still in good shape ? Or was the plane truly past its lifetime with maintenance continuing and certification agencies not taking action (what action could be taken?) ??? What happens when a plane reaches its designed age ? Does this mean that the owner takes it apart, xrays the squeletton and rebuilds it with brand new parts, or does it just get a regular major check-up ? From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:34 From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Brian Maddison) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article "David Smith" writes: >When was the Bristol Freighter introduced? I don't suppose it antedated >the >Me 323 Gigant of WWII which had clamshell nose doors and a cockpit >above the cargo hold? Or the Fairchild C-82 Packet of the late 1940s? The Bristol 170 first flew in December 1945, the XC-82 in September 1944. Not strictly to do with airliners, but C-82s were loaded from the rear and did not have nose doors (correct me if I'm wrong). The location of the flight deck was simply to give more cargo space in the fuselage pod. When the C-119 was developed its cockpit returned to a more conventional position. Brian M -- Brian Maddison ITSD Support E209 Phone:387-5485 FAX:387-6086 From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:35 From: graemec@ibm.net Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <:> <32fe7206.4973594 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net "David Smith" writes: >When was the Bristol Freighter introduced? I don't suppose it >antedated the Me 323 Gigant of WWII which had clamshell nose >doors and a cockpit above the cargo hold? Or the Fairchild C-82 >Packet of the late 1940s? No, it doesn't antedate the Me323 but it's about contemporary with the C-82 - which actually didn't have nose doors. It was loaded from the rear, which was the reason for the twin booms. The earlier (than the C-82) Curtiss C-76 Caravan DID have a nose door with flight deck over but I think it was later than the 323. Almost certainly the glider version of the Gigant was earlier than the Caravan but I don't know any dates. It was used operationally in 1942 across the Mediterranean. ************************** Graeme Cant ************************** From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:35 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Blended-body snag? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Joules Potter (Joules@enigma3.demon.co.uk) wrote: : In article , adopt : writes : >In article , ostreger@aol.com : >(Ostreger) wrote: : >Not a technical answer... but do wonder if a design could be : >similar to a submarine. The guts of the passenger/flight crew : >pressure shell could still be cylinderical... although blended : >with the whole 'wing'. : Sounds like a good idea, maintain a pressurised semi-monocoque shell : within the unpressurised remaining wing area. That does not sound like a good idea to me. You would lose an awful amount of space. : Nobody has yet mentioned fuel storage. : A 747-400 can hold a max of 173000kg(382999lbs) of fuel, which should : get it LHR-HKG for example. Taking into consideration new engine : developments which lead to better fuel consumption, to have any sort of : range this aircraft is going to have to carry, or have provision to : carry, a lot of fuel. So where are they going to put it? Well, at the back-end of the wing, close to the flaps/ailreons/elevators (flapervators?) the internal height will get too low for a passenger cabin. So the fuel can be put there. Another place would be over the passengers' heads. Fuel being a liquid, it can be put anywhere fixed stuff cannot. : What about the engines? : Modern engines are tending towards higher and higher bypass ratios, can : you imagine 4 next generation RR Trent/GE engines mounted internally? Why 4? Considering a flying wing will be more aerodynamically efficient than a classic plane, perhaps you can only use three or better, two. Two is enough for the 747 sized 777. Alternatively, giant Trent/GE90 sized mills can be shunned for handier CFM, IAE or PW2000 units. : Quite apart from the size of the engine, the intake/exhaust ducting : would be enourmous, having to pass through the length of the aircraft, : disrupting the passenger carrying compartment and creating even more : structural questions. The McDac model did have the engines above the fuselage, on pylons. No air-duct carry-throughs there. Another place for the engines is the back, with the intakes over the top of the center wing/body. Seems boundary-layer air slowed by the upper skin is OK for engine intakes. : Unless there are some real wayout advances in all aspects of aircraft : construction, eg materials, engines etc, then this incredible flying : machine IMHO will never get off the drawing board and into the air as a : commercially viable passenger aircraft. It could perhaps go the way of : Concorde instead. Yep, building the dang thing will likely be much more costly than making a classic plane, enspecially since most classic plane constructiuon investments will not be usefull. Stretching it becomes well-nigh impossible. -- Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE* FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus- From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:36 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Blended-body snag? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Reply-To: "P. Wezeman" Various people have written: > >>How do the new blended-body airliners claim to handle pressurisation > >>loads? > > > >Not a technical answer... but do wonder if a design could be > >similar to a submarine. The guts of the passenger/flight crew > >pressure shell could still be cylinderical... although blended > >with the whole 'wing'. > > What about the engines? Published drawings show the engines on short pylons on the upper rear surface of the wing. I can't believe that the designers at McDonnell Douglas, Airbus, and Lockheed (which has been looking at flying wings they call "Spanloaders" for a long time) have all neglected pressurization. For that matter, weren't the B-35 and B-49 flying wing bombers pressurized? The B-35 met the same range and payload specs as the B-36 but with four R4350 engines instead of six. Hopefully one of the engineers working on these things will comment. Lockheed's drawing of a cargo spanloader showed standard 8x8 cargo containers loaded into a hollow wing spar, so the compartments were spanwise instead of fore and aft. Current drawings for blended-body airliners show passengers behind the leading edge of the center section, also with spanwise compartments. It seems to me that the main wing spars would be well positioned to take the tension loads from floor to ceiling. One of the advantages that has long been claimed for blended-body aircraft is that by combining fuselage with wing the structure that distributes the aerodynamic loads also contributes to the strength of the passenger compartment, whereas in a conventional aircraft, the cabin area is pretty much a dead load, and the designers natural inclination is to make it as light as possible. Every pound of weight added to the fuselage to improve crashworthiness means extra weight in the wing structure to carry it. In a blended design, heavier skinning on the passenger area will still increase the weight to be lifted, but it will also contribute to the maximum load factor the aircraft will sustain and to the fatigue life. As you point out, structurally efficient pressure vessels do not have to be circular in cross section. A super-imposition of circular arcs with the vertices linked by tension members will also work. This is probably most familiar in the case of the "double bubble" fuselage of the Boing Stratocruiser and KC-97. For a large blended-wing airliner, if we take several B747 fuselages (about twenty feet in diameter) and place them with their centerlines ten feet apart and remove the sides where they intersect, the missing sides can be replaced by vertical bulkheads about seventeen feet high. At a maximum cabin presurization of 8 psi these bulkheads will have a tensile load of 12,000 pounds per linear foot. Assuming a safe working load for aluminum of 10,000 psi, it would need to be just a tenth of an inch thick, for a total weight of 24 pounds per foot of length. This comes to 2.4 pounds per square foot of cabin floor. Assuming ten square feet of cabin area per passenger, this is 20,000 pounds of structure for an 800 passenger aircraft. The interior height would range from seventeen to twenty feet, and the upper and lower surfaces of the cabin would need to be no heavier than on the present B747. Actually, this height would probably allow for two passenger decks and need only 10,000 pounds of wall structure for 800 people. These bulkheads would also be contributing to the longitudinal bending strength of the aircraft. If the interior height were made 17 feet everywhere, the upper and lower 1.5 feet of the cabin would incorporate the ribs and stringers of the aircraft skin, and the pressure cabin would be adding buckling resistance to the wing surface. The bulkheads could be trusswork for much of their height, giving the cabin interior more of the look of an open office than of a railroad car. These are of course very rough figures based on my limited knowledge of aeronautics and structures, but I think they serve my purpose, since if I use these same assumptions to figure the weight of a circular fuselage to hold 800 passengers, I get a higher number. The fact that the cabin of a blended-wing aircraft is wider (and therefore shorter) than that of a conventional plane will in itself reduce the bending loads and hence the structural weight. Also note that a relatively flat cabin like this has more passengers per unit of frontal area than a circular one, giving less drag for the same capacity. All in all, I see no reason to doubt the claimed advantages for this type of aircraft, certainly not before they try building one. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:36 From: graemec@ibm.net Subject: Re: Blended-body snag? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net Joules Potter wrote: >Nobody has yet mentioned fuel storage. > A 747-400 can hold a max of 173000kg(382999lbs) of fuel, which should >get it LHR-HKG for example. Taking into consideration new engine >developments which lead to better fuel consumption, to have any sort of >range this aircraft is going to have to carry, or have provision to >carry, a lot of fuel. So where are they going to put it? Why not put it in tanks in the wing - just like conventional aeroplanes? One thing flying wings have never lacked is fuel tank space. >Modern engines are tending towards higher and higher bypass ratios, can >you imagine 4 next generation RR Trent/GE engines mounted internally? No. But then only a few designers ever did imagine that with any jet engine and they stopped it a long time ago. >Quite apart from the size of the engine, the intake/exhaust ducting >would be enourmous, having to pass through the length of the aircraft, >disrupting the passenger carrying compartment and creating even more >structural questions. The Independent's picture seems to show the engines mounted at the rear without ducts of any serious length. There did seem to be some shrouding arrangement which might point to some boundary layer jiggery-pokery. >>>their circular fuselage does not distort with pressurisation - >>>(though the Comet III exploded nonetheless!) Comet I actually. >Unless there are some real wayout advances in all aspects of aircraft >construction, eg materials, engines etc, then this incredible flying >machine IMHO will never get off the drawing board and into the air as a >commercially viable passenger aircraft. I would have thought that nobody was brave enough (as Sir Humphrey might put it) to say such things any more. It was said about the 747, it was said about the 707, it was said about the B-47(except the commercially viable bit), it was said about the B-29 (ditto comm. viable), it was said about the 247... Are you the guy that made Anthony Fokker put wing struts on the DVIII? We've had 93 years of almost continuous 'real way out advances in all aspects of aircraft construction' especially 'materials engines etc'. With the new lightweight alloys, the experience Boeing and MDD now have in composite structures and the new big engines, it seems entirely feasible. The major problem would actually seem to be deciding whether the aerodynamics are reliable enough to risk the huge investment which will be required or whether a more conventional solution is a better place to put $15-20 billion. Aerodynamics seems to be what made Boeing. It will be interesting to see if (with MDD) they still have that edge. >It could perhaps go the way of Concorde instead. It could perhaps go the way of the 747. It'll be interesting to see if the current generation is made of the same stuff as Bill Allen. ******************************** Graeme Cant ******************************** From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:36 From: TUKANO Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Meg Appleton wrote: > > I was curious if the C-130's and C-141's have any commercial utility. > If someone gave them away, would they find productive use or would the > operating costs be simply too high? There are a lot of C130 in civil use, for freight or mixed PAX/ Freight Combination. Especially in Africa, this aircraft is popular and used in relief missions, and civil versions are named L100(reffering to Southern Air Transport) Concerning the C141, this is a unique A/C only used by the USAF. There is no civil application. The operation costs should be to high due to the lack of maintenance and fuel costs, as well as for the required noise regulations in some countries. there would also be a certifivcation problem, because there is no civil-certified airplane. (Maybe this would mean for the C130 that they have to copy with the certification of the L100) So long, Tukano. -- mailto:immoeadj@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:37 From: etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delta Internet Services, Anaheim, Ca Reply-To: etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) In , Meg Appleton writes: >I was curious if the C-130's and C-141's have any commercial utility. >If someone gave them away, would they find productive use or would the >operating costs be simply too high? According to the 94/95 JP Airline Fleets, Southern Air Transport has a fleet of 15 C-130s. I think they are the largest US commercial operators of the type. I think their fleet are commercial built L-100s rather than converted military C-130s. -- etech@deltanet.com Eric Chevalier Compu$erve: 76010,2463 etech@netcom.com http://users.deltanet.com/~etech/ From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:37 From: nav130@aol.com (NAV130) Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I was curious if the C-130's and C-141's have any commercial utility. >If someone gave them away, would they find productive use or would the >operating costs be simply too high? As others have said, yes, the C-130 is or has been flown by a number of companies. I believe Lockheed has built 2000+ C-130s and is still building them with the current model having a two-person (no flt engineer, no navigator) "glass" cockpit. You could set up a whole newsgroup on the C-130. The C-141 went out of production in the late 60's to make room for C-5 production. It's become difficult to maintain for want of parts and "tired iron" and it's doubtful that a private company could turn a profit with it. Mike Martin ex-USAF Airlifter From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:37 From: Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca In Meg Appleton > writes: > > > >I was curious if the C-130's and C-141's have any commercial utility. A C-130 aircraft in UPS colours was prominently displayed in a documentary aired on the Discovery channel in Canada recently about Keiko the whale who starred in the movie FREE WILLY (Willie being the fictitious name of the whale, not an anatomical part:-). UPS donated the transport of the very ill whale from Mexico city to somewhere in Oregon (or Washington state?) right next to the coast to a facility with cold enough water where she could be healed and taught to fetch food for herself in the hopes of setting her free again one day. (The waters in Mexico were too warm for the whale). I do not know if UPS uses this plane regularly, or if it was painted "UPS" for that occasion only. The whale was placed in a sort fo container half filled with water and ice for a trip which lasted about 16 hours from pool to pool with one re-fueling stop-over in Phoenix (which required changing water in the container and adding more ice.) The narrator said that the whale's trainers could not be on the same plane because of weight restrictions, only pilots and 2 doctors + the whale. I do not know to what extent this was true or not. From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:37 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >A C-130 aircraft in UPS colours was prominently displayed in a >documentary aired on the Discovery channel in Canada recently about >Keiko the whale who starred in the movie FREE WILLY (Willie being the >fictitious name of the whale ... I do not know if UPS uses this plane >regularly, or if it was painted "UPS" for that occasion only. The aircraft was wet-leased from another outfit, and painted in UPS colors, specifically for the move of Willy. A rather expensive trip but a whale of a lot of PR for UPS. (Sorry! :-)) UPS does not have the C-130 in its own fleet. -- 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 Feb 13 01:37:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:37 From: Steve D White Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None In article , MegaZone writes >standard C-130H military model. And the RAF has C-130H-30s that are >stretched like the L-100-30. The Royal Air Force actually have C-130Ks which only exists for the UK. The aircraft is infact a C-130E with UK mods on. We call them the Hercules CMk1 and CMk3 for the short and streched respectively. If your wondering what happened to the C Mk2, its the Met office Hercules calles Snoopy due to the extra long probe on the front. We should have C-130Js next year (Herc. C Mk4 & C Mk5) SD White BEng CEng MIEE E-Mail:sdwhite@iee.org Electronic Assessment Patrol & Support Aircraft Deptartment DTEO Boscombe Down AMESBURY Wilts, SP4 0JF These views are mine and not necessarily those of DTEO From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:37 From: rhett Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rhett_l@onaustralia.com.au Meg Appleton wrote: > > I was curious if the C-130's and C-141's have any commercial utility. > If someone gave them away, would they find productive use or would the > operating costs be simply too high? Lockheed were selling the C-130 as a civilian airfreighter in two varients (a standard & stretch - the same stretch as in th UK ones) but the didn't sell all that well. To my knowledge, the C-141 is not in civil use except for a couple that NASA use. Rhett "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!" rhett_l@onaustralia.com.au From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:38 From: "Andre Neves" Subject: Question: Vertical speed on landing? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUnet Portugal Can somebody please tell me what is the vertical landing speed limit for a B737 or B757 at MaxLandWeight (prior to any structural damage)? Does it differ in a large amount from the empty figure? thanks... From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:38 From: "al M." Subject: Airbus A320 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A.T.P. Hello Everyone:-) Does anyone know if the A320 is considered a Heavy? I know about the weight classification but I am looking along the lines of the wind design, since the B757 is considered a Heavy Jet due to its wake.. From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:38 From: "Gary J. Page" Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University of Technology C. Marin Faure wrote: .... > These surveys have been conducted for years and years by the travel > industry, the airline industry, and the airframe manufacturing industry. > Every one of these surveys ends up with the same data: most passengers > don't know who built the plane they're on, they don't know how many > engines it has, they don't know what color it's painted, and THEY DON"T > CARE. I remember an interesting finding from a survey published in Air Transport World asking about seat pitch, width, price etc. The conclusion was that the most important factor was sitting next to an empty seat! Gary Page __ Dr. Gary J. Page, Department of Aeronautical & Automotive tel: [+44] (0)1509 228167 Engineering and Transport Studies fax: [+44] (0)1509 223946 Loughborough University mailto:G.J.Page@lboro.ac.uk Loughborough, Leicestershire. LE11 3TU http://info.lboro.ac.uk/ United Kingdom From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:38 From: Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca C. Marin Faure wrote: > These surveys have been conducted for years and years by the travel > industry, the airline industry, and the airframe manufacturing industry. > Every one of these surveys ends up with the same data: most passengers > don't know who built the plane they're on, they don't know how many > engines it has, they don't know what color it's painted, and THEY DON"T > CARE. Perhaps this is a local custom in the USA where the air transport industry is quite different from the rest of the world. (number of carriers, low fares, high frequency). But everyone I know knows the difference between a wide body and a "small" plane and for overseas flights, they always ask what kind of plane (eg: if they have a choice of a 747 with something else, they will prefer the 747. Many want to avoid the smaller planes. Those who are not comfortable flying will take steps to avoid the smaller planes. While I can agree that passengers may not know the specifics of a plane (builder, model, number and position of engines etc), I still find it hard to beleive that those "industry surveys" apply to the worldwide industry and apply equally to shuttle and overseas flights. Passengers remember the inside layout of a plane and which company they flew with. They may not know that seat pitch is defined by the airline and not the builder, but they remember if a flight was cramped or not because those are feelings/impressions one gets without requiring facts or rulers. It is also interesting to note that a fair number of folks are affraid of twin engine planes over the ocean. Obviously those do not fit in those statistics since they care about the type of plane they are on. From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:38 From: dmfoster@worldnet.att.net (David M. Foster) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services On 31 Jan 97 14:29:21 , richard@rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) wrote: >My mother is average. My brother is worse! He flew TG to Delhi a few >years back on a MD-11 and thought it was a 747. I said "3 engines and >no hump" and he had no clue :) My sister's the same. She flew a LH A340 IAD-FRA, but to this day is convinced it was a 747 because it was "big inside" and had 4 engines not 3 -- which would've made it a DC-10. From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:39 From: "Ryan M" Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: West Coast Online's News Server - Not responsible for content I have a freind who had recently flown on South West, and thought the 737 was a 747(really!). I don't know if wether he was just trying to get on my nerves or not=) From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:39 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca wrote: > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > One thing you can count on, however, is that if a true market for these > > planes emerges, Boeing will have a plane to meet it. > > Is it fair to assume that Airbus's A3XX at this point in time, is still > much behind the 747-500x and 747-600x in terms of engineering work > remaining ? > Will Airbus be able to catch up if it continues at its current rate with > the Boeing project during Boeing's hiatus ? > > Or put another way: Assuming both companies got what they wanted today > (market for Boeing, financing for Airbus), which of the two would be > first to market with revenus passengers, and how long before the other > company acheives the same results ? All I can say is that you would be amazed at how fast Boeing could create a 747-500/600 if a true market emerged. But if both projects went ahead under your last scenario, it was already acknowledged that the 747 drivatives would beat the A3xx to market by several years. Also, most market and financial analysts seem to feel that the cost and time-to produce-projections by Airbus for the A3XX are WAY underestimated. But then who says analysts are always right... C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:39 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X?(was Boeing cancels 767-500X/600X?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: >Boeing's reasons for cancelling the project are logical. However, I >think Airbus's marketing people have done a great job in convincing some >key customers from not committing to Boeing. The superjumbo will have >a smaller customer base than the B747. (The customer base for the B747 >is already a small one. Approximately 50% of the B747 in service are >with the top ten or twelve B747 operators.) but 25 airlines assume 70 % of the total traffic >Even before launching the >A3XX, Airbus basically has at least three customers in its basket, namely, >Air France, Lufthansa, and Korean Air (Korea is likely to be the first >Asian A3XX partner). Do you really think that Airbus continues its project with those 3 potential customers. I do not htink tha AFR is the best customer in its situation. I think Airbus has some views on the some airlines than Boeing that is to say the top ten of the airlines. >I read about a British speculation in a news digest (I have not read >the actual article). It suggested that Boeing is working on a >futuristic lifting-surface superjumbo previously proposed by >McDonnell Douglas. Of course, Boeing denied the report. This futuristic project does not convince anyone because there are too many barriers like gates airport From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:40 From: Eric Young Subject: Old DC-10 attitude problem... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None In the original DC-10's, was there something wrong with their flying attitude? I heard the backs had to be fitted as piano bars as passengers in the last few rows became sick on flights. Thank you. ***Brock*** From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:40 From: Jörg-Peter Bös Subject: EMB145 experiences Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: Meditair Reply-To: JPBOES@ARRAKIS.ES We are evaluating the EMB145 for a Southern Europe regional startup and would apreciate any comments on this a/c concerning technical/commercial viability, handling & maintenance aspects or even anyone who had any experience on this type as a passenger. Hey, you Continental and Regional Air guys, let me know what you think of your units. Thanks in advance for any comment.. J=F6rg From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:40 From: bylsma@unixg.ubc.ca (Dieder Bylsma) Subject: Concorde diversion to Halifax? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Just saw a photo in a newspaper of the Concorde at an airport-gate in Halifax. Caption said that it had diverted to Halifax yesterday or the day before from London-NYC as a result of an emergency? Any details available? -- bylsma@unixg.ubc.ca | Nothing happens in contradiction to ----------------------+ nature; only in contradiction to what we know of it... From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.space.policy Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:40 From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) Subject: Re: Kerosene vs Hydrogen fuelled SSTO rockets References: <5btk4q$j5d@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <5c2fm9$4j4@josie.abo.fi> <5cbl8i$b9k@clarknet.clark.net> <5ckmto$ode@josie.abo.fi> <5cnv0v$jmi@clarknet.clark.net> <5cpqnf$777@josie.abo.fi> <5crrvs$ku5@clarknet.clark.net> <5d7k03$8cn@josie.abo.fi> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: Linköping University, Sweden mlindroo@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) writes: > However, Boeing's SST had little in common with the Concorde and > Tu-144. 250-300 passengers vs. 100-150, longer range, cruise at Mach > 3 rather than Mach 2 etc.. Today, the consensus appears to be that > the SST was the right size but that the fuel economy would not have > been good. There is an intresting benefit with a Mach 3 aeroplane. Less time used per flight makes it possible to fly more flights per day. It is significant to be able to use 2/3 of the number of aeroplanes to transport the same number of customers. I guess there are two large problems with such an aeroplane. Enviromental, can it be flow withouth being to noisy and does it pollute the air to much? Economical and technical, can its fuel costs be low enough? Perhaps if we ever get cheap and plentiful hydrogen from nuclear or developed solar power? Regards, -- -- Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se Mail: Magnus Redin, Bj=F6rnk=E4rrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINK=F6PING, SWEDEN Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600 From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:40 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: teeny vertical fins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Scott Miloro wrote: > > I have noticed that a number of Boeing products have small (looks like 2 feet > or so) vertical fins on the dorsal portion of the Fuselage. I know for sure > I saw these on a VA B747-200 at BOS. Methinks they are on 757 type aircraft > as well. So the question is...what are these things, and what are they doing? I think you're seeing VHF sharkfin antennas. All commercial airliners have some sort of blade antennas for VHF comms on them, usually more than one. Most Boeing products (incl 707s) have them on the top and bottom of the fuselage, in some cases (ie: 747) more than one on each side). AFAIK, there are no aerodynamic surfaces on a 747 other than the vertical fin, horizontal fins, wings, and (in the case of the -400), winglets. Jennings Heilig From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:41 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: teeny vertical fins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , miloro@cric.com (Scott Miloro) wrote: >I have noticed that a number of Boeing products have small (looks like 2 feet >or so) vertical fins on the dorsal portion of the Fuselage. I know for sure >I saw these on a VA B747-200 at BOS. Methinks they are on 757 type aircraft >as well. So the question is...what are these things, and what are they doing? You could be seeing VHF blade antennas. These are small (about a foot or so in length) and hang from the VENTRAL side (underside) of the fuselage. Their purpose, as should be obvious by the name, is to send and receive VHF radio signals (comm & nav). As for a "dorsal" fin, B737s have it - it is the extension of the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer forward along the fuselage. I am not aware of any aircraft with a separate, unconnected dorsal fin (other than certain aircraft modified for electronic monitoring by foreign governments). ed >>>> Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 <<<< The above statement is the opinion of the author. No endorsement or warranty by the MITRE Corporation is expressed or implied. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:41 From: "Stephen D. Todd" Subject: Re: teeny vertical fins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sympatico When you talk about the "teeny vertical fins", you're not talking about the antennae are you? Also, I don't think VIASA (VA) serves BOS, or operates the B747 Series 200. In fact I believe their largest equipment is the DC10-30. Is it possible that the aircraft you saw was a (red & white) Virgin Atlantic Airways (VS) B747 Series 200, they definately serve BOS (daily), and would be parked over near Delta (DL) at their main terminal (not the Delta Shuttle terminal)... probably between 5 and 9 pm. Brgds, Steve. PS: The DC10 has those "teeny vertical fins" as well. From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:41 From: "Marc SCHAEFFER" Subject: number of takeoffs per plane type Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I'm looking to find a place on the net (or elsewhere) where I can find the following information for all current and older planes : - total number of takeoffs (and hopefully landings) per plane type - total number of flight hours per plane type - total number of passengers per plane type To all experts out there, I would appreciate any inputs Marc // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) -- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:41 From: "Marc SCHAEFFER" Subject: A330-300 of Air Inter Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM - Air Inter had 15 A330-300 on order, it looks like they have canceled the order. - In Aero International I read the following : - Aer Lingus will get a fifth A330 this summer (it will be from Air Inter) - Sabena will lease 3 Air Inter A330-300 to replace the A310-300, until they get the recently ordered A330-200 - Who can tell me why Air Inter gets rid of the A330-300 (no more needed, poor performance, ???) To all experts out there, I would appreciate any inputs Marc // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) -- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:42 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>WRT DC8-70 series, I believe it is the CFM-34, and not CFM-56. > >The CFM34 is a GE engine in the roughly 9,000-14,000 lbs thrust range, >used on the Canadair RJ and its cousins. Minor nit: it's CF34. The "M" in "CFM" comes from Snecma's engine designation scheme. Snecma is not involved in the CF34 program. From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:42 From: richn@sdd.hp.com (Rich Nute) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division Somewhere, sometime, I was led to believe that the DC-8 has an APU, while the 707 does not. Without an APU, the 707 needs auxiliary ground equipment to get the first engine started, while the DC-8 could be started from its APU. If true, the 707 can only go to airports with auxiliary ground equipment. I thought this was a serious negative factor for airlines, and one big reason airlines favored the DC-8. Richard Nute San Diego From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:42 From: Dave Lee Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever >> All kidding aside, it is my understanding that Douglas put more effort >> into corrosion protection. The DC-8 is also a newer design. > > I'd beg to differ on that last statement. Both types were designed >within a couple of years of each other in the early 1950s, and the 707 >was in production (even the pax versions) longer than the DC-8. The >last DC-8 was delivered in 1972. IIRC the last passenger 707 was >delivered in 1975 or so. The 707 was produced by Boeing in the "Dash 80" form well before Douglas produced the DC-8. The DC-7 had numerous backorders when the Dash 80 came out. Douglas saw the writing on the wall, and even with the backorders on the DC-7 giving them ample reason to sit on their laurels, they commenced a task to develop a 4 engined plane which became the DC-8. It was in response to Boeing. When launched, the DC-8 was said to have a certain performance characteristic and fuel consumption. Upone delivery the airlines were disappointed to find that the stated performance and fuel consumption was incorrect, and that the range of the plane was much less than stated on the spec sheet. The 707 was redesigned quickly after the DC-8 was launched, being the "wider" one of the pair allowing six abreast seating while the Dash 80 allowed only 5 abreast. The 707 is 1 inch wider inside than the DC-8 thus becoming the wider of the pair. The DC-8 suffered in long-range performance compared to the 707 due to its having a less swept back wing angle than the 707. This information comes from my father who worked on the Dash 80 and 707 among other aircraft from 1950-1987. Dave Seattle, WA -- "But seek first his kingdom and his rightousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." -Matthew 6:33-34 From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:42 From: gdmckinn@ccnet.com (Gary McKinnis) Subject: Re: KC-135R vs. A *was* DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCnet Communications (510-988-7140 guest) >Louis A. Ramsay wrote in article >... >> I think another consideration in re-engining the B-707 was the >> height of the existing engine off the ground. You can't add much more >> engine diameter to a 707 before the lower part of the cowling will be >> rubbing on the ground and, face it, the new engines are quite a bit >> bigger in diameter. For those who don't know, the KC-135R is the KC-135A, with CFM56 engines replacing the J57s. A year or two after the "R" entered USAF service, I spoke to an "R" pilot who had flown his plane into Mather AFB (RIP), for a static display. He said that the biggest operational concern he had with the "R" vs. the "A" was that the huge nacelles on the "R" dictated a significantly lower crosswind component during landings. On the *plus* side 8-), he was very pleased with the extra power and the much shorter runway requirements. During the same visit, a couple of boom operators related stories of a couple of "R" ground mishaps. It seems that ground crews were used to walking around the inlets of running J57s with impunity. That habit quickly changed after a ground crewman was sucked into a CFM56 running at full power, during a ground test. The problem was that he was *not* walking near the engine; he was apparently lined up even with the nose of the aircraft when the suction got hold of him and his jacket. The second story had to do with USAF maintenance truck operations near aircraft with running engines. With the "A", it was OK to park a van behind the airplane, just past the tail, but in the line of sight of the jet blast. That habit stopped after a van was blown over during a ground run-up of the CFM56s on an "R". Gary From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:42 From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nobody but me In article , "Damon Marcus Lewis" wrote: >Louis A. Ramsay wrote in article >... >> I think another consideration in re-engining the B-707 was the >> height of the existing engine off the ground. You can't add much more >> engine diameter to a 707 before the lower part of the cowling will be >> rubbing on the ground and, face it, the new engines are quite a bit >> bigger in diameter. > Have you ever seen an E-6 or late E-3 (RAF of French)? Thes are 707s with CFM-56s under the wing. The last civilian 707 built was a CFM-56 protptype, 707-700 built in 1977. Boeing decided not to pursue the the airliner project because it would have taken sales away from the 767 and 757. The plane was converted to a JT3 707 and delivered to the Moroccan Government in 1982. From kls Thu Feb 13 01:37:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Feb 97 01:37:43 From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company In article , Brian Maddison wrote: >In article >drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: > >>Actually, there are over 400 707's still in active commercial service. > --- > >I don't think so. Flight magazine's census gives a figure of 136 in >airline service worldwide. JP lists 218 including private, corporate, >government and military. I'm going by an internal Boeing listing of active aircraft that we actively support. I can not vouch for the accuracy of Flight Magazine. -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:18 From: maclure@cvsrf1.arc.nasa.gov (MacLure) Subject: 747SP Flight Training Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Ames Research Center I've been asked a question regarding the SP ( short fuselage long-range ) 747 variant. I don't believe any simulators were ever built for this type which leads to the question: "How was training done?" I suspect that the systems were similar enough to the -100 model that some training could be done on -100 sims. The question of flight training would however be a different story. -- ############## No Times Like The Maritimes, Eh! ##################### IBM aka # Ian_Maclure@QMGATE.arc.nasa.gov (desk) Ian B MacLure # maclure@(remulak/cvsrf1).arc.nasa.gov(currently) Opinions expressed here are mine, mine, mine.(YOOHOO NSA[PU,PCP,PGP]) From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:18 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > > Recent news reports about TWA800 has shown one of the relatives speaking > out on the 747-100 after a tour of the NTSB reconstruction site. He said > that the plane was well past its planned lifetime and should have been > retired years ago. > > What exactly does this mean ? > Are planes designed to "expire" after so many cycles ? What happens to > maintenance schedules and certification process once a plane acheives > its expected lifetime ? > > In the case of the 747-100, are we talking here about a plane that long > ago passed its originally designed lifetime but was granted extentions > because it was still in good shape ? AFAIK there is no hard life limit on the 747-100 airframe. Like everything that ages (you, me and airplanes) there are requirements for more frequent maintenance and structural inspections. The only limit on the life of the airplane is economic. Eventually these inspections, the cost of fuel relative to more modern engines, and the 3-crew cockpit will combine to make it un-economic to continue to use these airplanes. In fact, there are many -100s that have alread been removed from service and are sitting in the desert boneyards awaiting their eventual conversion to "post-consumer" recycled products. Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:18 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:37 AM 2/13/97, you wrote: >Recent news reports about TWA800 has shown one of the relatives speaking >out on the 747-100 after a tour of the NTSB reconstruction site. He said >that the plane was well past its planned lifetime and should have been >retired years ago. > >What exactly does this mean ? >Are planes designed to "expire" after so many cycles ? What happens to >maintenance schedules and certification process once a plane acheives >its expected lifetime ? ======Most planes live forever...just look at the old DC-3 which couldn't even be certified under today's standards. As long as careful attention is put into the inspection and replacement of the airplane structure and equipment, the airplane will continue to work per original design. Some structure is so basic and expensive to replace that fatigue of these parts sets the lifetime value of the airplane. However, the estimated fatigue life has in the past proven to be very conservative relative to what is actually experienced in operation. So my answer to this query would be no, the 747-100 will go for many more years and will probably be rebuilt as a freighter before it ever evaporates from the active inventory of airliners. It is a grand old bird! People who are looking for money from deep pockets will say about anything! Oh, by the way, the 747-100 that was flight 800 is now retired! Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-9455/4815 From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:19 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Airliners are designed for a certain lifetime, nominally in hours but really more affected by the number the number and severity of stress and unstress cycles in the structure, which is subject to metal fatigue. This lifetime is a conservative estimate, and if inspections show that the structure is still sound after this time, the plane may remain in service as long as certain regulations are followed. I believe that under the present regulations, which were made after the fatigue failure of the pressure cabin of an Alaho Air B737 several years ago, no airliner may remain in passenger service for more than half the demonstrated safe life of the aircraft as measured both in flying hours and in operating cycles. For example, if you had a DC-8 with 30,000 hours and 8,000 presurization-depressurization cycles, you would not be allowed to fly it with paying passengers unless, somewhere in the world, a DC-8 of the same variety had safely flown 60,000 hours and 16,000 cycles. If your plane was a stretch version I think the other plane must be a stretch version as well. For the most part, I think that this requirement is satisfied by aircraft manufacturer's prototypes which are used to test new equipment and modifications and accumulate a lot of flights and hours. If it ever got to the point that a lot of airplanes were about to be grounded, the airlines could assemble two or three shifts of flight crews and keep a plane in the air 20 hours a day until they had a reserve of flight hours. This is what I recall from reading Aviation Week and such. Others who work in the field please correct or update. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:19 From: maclure@cvsrf1.arc.nasa.gov (MacLure) Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Ames Research Center Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> writes: [SNIP] >What exactly does this mean ? >Are planes designed to "expire" after so many cycles ? What happens to >maintenance schedules and certification process once a plane acheives >its expected lifetime ? Determination of the structural integrity of a design and of individual aircraft of that design is a dynamic process involving detection and testing. Aircraft are inspected at regular and mandated intervals. Further, there is usually at least one manufacturer's test article that stays well ahead of the fleet in terms of the hours "flown". When problems are found they are the subject of engineering investigation and if possible, repair efforts. Some airframes have estimated lives in the 100,000s of hours range. IIRC, when the DC8 test article was shut down it had amassed something like 250,000 equivalent hours. AT 12 hours per day usage thats roughly 57 years of service. >In the case of the 747-100, are we talking here about a plane that long >ago passed its originally designed lifetime but was granted extentions >because it was still in good shape ? Or was the plane truly past its >lifetime with maintenance continuing and certification agencies not >taking action (what action could be taken?) ??? No, what we are talking about here is a bunch of lawyers looking for something to hang a lawsuit against someone with deep pockets on. >What happens when a plane reaches its designed age ? Does this mean that >the owner takes it apart, xrays the squeletton and rebuilds it with >brand new parts, or does it just get a regular major check-up ? If it can be repaired economically and lawfully it will be, otherwise the plane is scrapped or sold. IBM -- ############## No Times Like The Maritimes, Eh! ##################### IBM aka # Ian_Maclure@QMGATE.arc.nasa.gov (desk) Ian B MacLure # maclure@(remulak/cvsrf1).arc.nasa.gov(currently) Opinions expressed here are mine, mine, mine.(YOOHOO NSA[PU,PCP,PGP]) From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:19 From: Ken Madden Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of North Texas Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > > Recent news reports about TWA800 has shown one of the relatives speaking > out on the 747-100 after a tour of the NTSB reconstruction site. He said > that the plane was well past its planned lifetime and should have been > retired years ago. The ONLY problem with TWA's older B-747's lies in their fuel inefficiency. An airplane can last as long as an airline deems necessary as long as it is maintained properly, and all ADs and SBs are complied with on a timely basis, as all of TWA's aircraft are. Check out my WWW site, "Madden's Air Transportation Safety Resources" at http://people.unt.edu/~kgm0001/ for brief discussions on the possible theories that brought TWA 800 down, but don't expect a sympathetic treatment of the static electricity or fuel pump theories; these are so much BS created by minds with nothing much better to do. From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:19 From: "gears" Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home >Are planes designed to "expire" after so many cycles ? What happens to >maintenance schedules and certification process once a plane acheives >its expected lifetime ? Airplanes are designed to expire, so to say, after so many cycles/hours. The metal used in its design is subject to vibration, pressurization, extreme temperture changes, all which cause the metal to expand and contract each time the aircraft flies. The expansion and contraction of this metal causes it to fatigue after so many revolutions. The manufacture decided the aircraft's life expectancy based on mathimatical formulas when the aircraft was first designed. When the time period for the aircraft was up, instead of grounding the aircaft and shipping it off to some desert, the manufactures extended the life span by adding aging aircraft inspections, these inspections being more detailed and intense than the standard maintenance inspections the aircraft was subject to during its initial life term. Most of the additional inspections are attached to the aircraft when it goes through the heavy "c" or "d" check maintenance inspection. Some can be done during lesser checks such as "a" checks or "b" checks. The additional inspections are also regulated by either cycles or hours. The 747-100 aircraft, like other aging aircraft such as the DC-10, 737, 727, and so forth, are under this type of certification program. If a discrepancy is found during this inspection, repairs can be made through engineering orders and standard maintenance practices to bring the aircraft back into service. Additionally, throughout the aircraft's life, many service bulletins have been made available to increase the durability of specific areas, and airworthiness directives have been issued to mandate that certain areas of the aircraft be improved so it can continue to fly. All the inspections, service bulletins, and ad's are kepted in the aircraft's records and reviewed by Production Control, Maintenance Records and Reliability, and Quality Assurance to ensure that all the required maintenance has been or is scheduled to be performed. Each type of aircraft has its own Time Limits manual which outlines what areas need to be looked at and when, this includes airframe, powerplant, emergency equipment, and components. Basically, each type of aircraft is set up to receive maintenance visits at a predetermined time. When it gets to its life expectancy, it continues to fly, and continues on its maintenance schedule, with more inspections attached to it. The heavy C checks come around approx. each year and the heavy D checks come around aproximatley every 6-10 years, depending on the type of aircraft and and cycle and hours interval it' s maintenance schedule is set upon. Hope this helps Best From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:19 From: "Brian A. Reynolds" Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > > Recent news reports about TWA800 has shown one of the relatives speaking > out on the 747-100 after a tour of the NTSB reconstruction site. He said > that the plane was well past its planned lifetime and should have been > retired years ago. > > What exactly does this mean ? > Are planes designed to "expire" after so many cycles ? What happens to > maintenance schedules and certification process once a plane acheives > its expected lifetime ? > > In the case of the 747-100, are we talking here about a plane that long > ago passed its originally designed lifetime but was granted extentions > because it was still in good shape ? Or was the plane truly past its > lifetime with maintenance continuing and certification agencies not > taking action (what action could be taken?) ??? > > What happens when a plane reaches its designed age ? Does this mean that > the owner takes it apart, xrays the squeletton and rebuilds it with > brand new parts, or does it just get a regular major check-up ? All aircraft are maintained on a schedule which takes into account design limitations and expected lifetimes. The initial planning for long term aircraft maintenance occurs during the initial certification process and involves the airlines and regulatory agencies. The aircraft airframe manufactures typically host these meetings and are invited to participate as technical experts. At one end is the A-checks which are normal, routing maintenance normally perfomed during overnights. At the other end is the "Heavy D-check" during which it is not unusual to totally rebuild an aircraft; at which time it is 'like new.' All areas subject to wear, fatigue, or corrosion are opened up and examined, then rebuild to factory specifications if required. Skins are removed to gain access to all locations so nothing is left untouched. Aircraft are typically removed from service when the economics of rebuild plus the cost of continued operations with older (read less efficient not less safe) exceed that of the projected benifit to be gained. (As is happening with older L-1011's for exampler where the cost of operation is now significanly higher then newer aircraft making the cost/benifit analyis come out in favor of newer and more economical aircraft.) A grieving relative of someone who died in an aircraft accident should not be given any more weight then anyone else who is not aware of policies, procedures, and requirements. They are not technically qualified to express a judgement; but they are entitled to their opinion. I would have to ask them however, how old their car is and when was the last time that they checked for rusted through frame members. Brian From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:19 From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: A330-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP In article , Marc SCHAEFFER wrote: > >- Who can tell me why Air Inter gets rid of the A330-300 > (no more needed, poor performance, ???) > Loosely, the French government insisted that they bought some, even though they had no conceivable use for it. (That's a slight exaggeration, although only a slight one). Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk "`I need every aluminum can you can find! And duct tape!" From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:19 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: A330-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Marc SCHAEFFER wrote: > - Who can tell me why Air Inter gets rid of the A330-300 > (no more needed, poor performance, ???) According to a friend who works (or I should say worked) for Air Inter, they were simply too big for Air Inter's needs. They were flying them from Paris to Marseille less than half full most of the time. That's why they didn't take any more and are getting rid of the ones they have. Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:20 From: probbe@micronet.fr (Patrick Robbe) Subject: Re: A330-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Francenet -- Paris, France On 13 Feb 97 01:37:41 , "Marc SCHAEFFER" wrote: >- Air Inter had 15 A330-300 on order, it looks like they have canceled > the order. >[...] >- Who can tell me why Air Inter gets rid of the A330-300 > (no more needed, poor performance, ???) It seems that for political & strategic reasons, Air France headquarters decided that Air Inter (now known as Air France Europe, at least until April 1st...) would recentrate its activities on the national shuttles rather than on the european flights, so they decided that the A330 were not needed any more, and I've read somewhere that they have ordered A319 and A321 in place of the A330. Patrick Robbe From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:20 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: A330-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Marc SCHAEFFER (marcmsc@hotmail.com) wrote: : - Who can tell me why Air Inter gets rid of the A330-300 : (no more needed, poor performance, ???) Air Inter is suffering competition on the high-traffic routes (Paris-Lyon for example) from the TGV (Train a grande vitesse - high speed train) They are moving away from these, and are now concentrating on thinner routes, as well as trying to offer more frequencies. All this points to smaller planes (A320 and derivates) : To all experts out there, I would appreciate any inputs Well I am not! :-) -- Filip De Vos Pierce Brosnan is OK as Bond nr.006 FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:20 From: TUKANO Subject: Re: A330-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Marc SCHAEFFER wrote: > > - Air Inter had 15 A330-300 on order, it looks like they have canceled > the order. > - In Aero International I read the following : > - Aer Lingus will get a fifth A330 this summer (it will be from Air > Inter) > - Sabena will lease 3 Air Inter A330-300 to replace the A310-300, > until they get the recently ordered A330-200 > - Who can tell me why Air Inter gets rid of the A330-300 > (no more needed, poor performance, ???) Hi, Air Inter is leasing out their A 330s, because the domestic french air market has changed. The time of the monopoly of Air Inter is over since 1995, and competition means that they had to offer more frequencies vs big aircraft. Air Inter is not able to fill the A330s on Toulouse-Orly e.g. anymore. Their new strategy consists of putting a flight every half an hour, but it is economically (probably) only suitable with A319s or A320s. BTW, Do you know the exact month when Sabena will get the A 330? so long, Tukano. -- mailto:immoeadj@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:20 From: "Marc SCHAEFFER" Subject: Re : A330-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM TUKANO wrote : > BTW, Do you know the exact month when Sabena will get the A 330? They will get the A330-300 for the new summer schedule. Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) -- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:20 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A330/340 vs. B777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca wrote: > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > These surveys have been conducted for years and years by the travel > > industry, the airline industry, and the airframe manufacturing industry. > > Every one of these surveys ends up with the same data: most passengers > > don't know who built the plane they're on, they don't know how many > > engines it has, they don't know what color it's painted, and THEY DON"T > > CARE. > > Perhaps this is a local custom in the USA where the air transport > industry is quite different from the rest of the world. (number of > carriers, low fares, high frequency). > > But everyone I know knows the difference between a wide body and a > "small" plane and for overseas flights, they always ask what kind of > plane (eg: if they have a choice of a 747 with something else, they will > prefer the 747. The surveys I am referring to are conducted on a worldwide basis, not just in the US. Yes, people know the difference between twin-aisle and single-aisle airplanes, but while your acquaintances may ask what kind of plane they're on, they are in the minority. Most people say on the survey forms that they don't know and don't care. The only two items almost all passengers indicate on the survey forms as being important are fare and schedule convenience. As for people preferring 747s, the 747 is the one plane every identifies with around the world because of its size, shape, and the fact that it was the first "jumbo." People who have never been on an airplane in their lives know what a 747 is. I've had people tell me they flew on a 747 when in fact the airline they flew on didn't even operate 747s. We have survey forms taken from people who just got off DC-10s, L-1011s, and even 767s, and in the space for writing down what airplane they just rode on, they put "747." Your friends may be knowledgable on the planes they fly, but the thousands of survey forms filled out every year around the world show that most passengers haven't got a clue as to the type of plane, the manufacturer, or the number of engines on the plane they just got off of. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:20 From: "Marc SCHAEFFER" Subject: A330-300 of Air Inter Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM To continue the never ending story of the A330-300 of Air Inter, I have the following : Ansett is planning to buy up to 14 A330-200 to replace their existing nine B767-200/300. Delivery should take place at the end of 1998. In addition, the four remaining A330-300 of Air Inter could be operated on high density australian domestic routes. So who gets these planes Sabena or Ansett? Let's wait and see. Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) -- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:20 From: gdmckinn@ccnet.com (Gary McKinnis) Subject: Re: EMB145 experiences References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCnet Communications (510-988-7140 guest) Read the Comair article at http://www.awgnet.com/bca/bc_cols.htm. It is a summary of a mini fly-off between the Canadair Regional Jet (CRJ) and the EMB-145. Comair, a US-based CRJ operator, flew the -145 against a CRJ on a couple of its scheduled routes. Highlight for me? The -145 burned 10% LESS fuel than the CRJ. Gary From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:20 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Ben wrote: >Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: >>Boeing's reasons for cancelling the project are logical. However, I >>think Airbus's marketing people have done a great job in convincing some >>key customers from not committing to Boeing. The superjumbo will have >>a smaller customer base than the B747. (The customer base for the B747 >>is already a small one. Approximately 50% of the B747 in service are >>with the top ten or twelve B747 operators.) > >but 25 airlines assume 70 % of the total traffic You totally missed the point. All the narrow-bodies planes have a very broad customer base, many have 100 plus customers. The B767 and A300/310 have a fairly broad customer base, too. The A330/340 has about 40 customers, and the B777 has about 25 customers, but both are relatively new models. If you exclude second-hand B747 market, the B747 probably has around 20 to 30 customers, only. (With such a small base, I personally don't think the B747-size and "superjumbo" market can viably sustain two competing manufacturers.) >>Even before launching the >>A3XX, Airbus basically has at least three customers in its basket, namely, >>Air France, Lufthansa, and Korean Air (Korea is likely to be the first >>Asian A3XX partner). > >Do you really think that Airbus continues its project with those 3 >potential customers. I do not htink tha AFR is the best customer in >its situation. >I think Airbus has some views on the some airlines than Boeing that is >to say the top ten of the airlines. You utterly misquoted my original post. I did not say Airbus would continue its projects with three customers. Let me re-state what I said before: The superjumbo will have a very small customer base. With a few airlines (like LH, AF, and KE) almost sure to order the Airbus plane (if it's launched), and a few major ones (like BA and SQ) are willing to decide after hearing Airbus's proposal, Boeing simply could not get enough orders from major customers to launch the new aircraft. Boeing said that there was no sufficient demand, but I really think the demand was held off by Airbus. After all, Boeing was ready to launch the plane last September at the Farnborough Air Show when Singapore Airlines, Japan Airlines, and a few other were rumored to order the B747X. PS It's funny that Ben (mba340@club-internet.fr) had challenged me many times when I criticized Airbus. This time, I'm praising Airbus's marketing effort for the A3XX, Ben challenged me, again. I guess I'm in a no-win situation. ;-) From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:20 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >You totally missed the point. All the narrow-bodies planes have a very >broad customer base, many have 100 plus customers. The B767 and >A300/310 have a fairly broad customer base, too. The A330/340 has about >40 customers, and the B777 has about 25 customers, but both are >relatively new models. If you exclude second-hand B747 market, the B747 >probably has around 20 to 30 customers, only. Boeing's Announced Orders and Deliveries document, as of June 30, 1996, lists 79 individual customers for the 747 in all series. This excludes operators who never bought new 747s from Boeing, but it also includes a number of operators who had them for a very short time, like Delta and Eastern. Here are the customer totals along with deliveries for all Boeing models, from Boeing's document, and excluding the initial flight test aircraft for the 747 thru 777: --- Deliveries --- - Customers - Model US Non-US Total US Non-US Tot 707/720 634 376 1,010 19 50 69 727 1,282 549 1,831 37 64 101 737 1,190 1,612 2,802 28 145 173 747 223 859 1,082 16 63 79 757 483 230 713 14 31 45 767 234 381 615 11 49 60 777 12 16 28 4 17 21 Yes, four US customers for the 777 -- besides United and Continental, they're counting lesasing outfits GECAS and ILFC. The surprisingly large number of customers for the 747 is due in part to its position as a status symbol, which any self-respecting flag carrier, no matter how small, just had to own during its early years, not to mention major carriers (e.g., Delta and Eastern) that had to buy a few to "keep up with the Joneses." The breakdown by series for the 747 is also interesting: --- Deliveries --- - Customers - Model US Non-US Total US Non-US Tot 747-100 124 126 250 10 22 32 747-200 54 339 393 9 50 59 747-300 3 78 81 1 18 19 747-400 42 239 281 3 28 31 747-400D 0 19 19 0 2 2 747-400F 0 11 11 0 5 5 747-400M 0 47 47 0 12 12 Seeing a US customer for the 747-300 was a surprise -- ILFC again. -- 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 Feb 19 02:46:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:21 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: >All I can say is that you would be amazed at how fast Boeing could create >a 747-500/600 if a true market emerged. But if both projects went ahead >under your last scenario, it was already acknowledged that the 747 >drivatives would beat the A3xx to market by several years. Also, most >market and financial analysts seem to feel that the cost and time-to >produce-projections by Airbus for the A3XX are WAY underestimated. But >then who says analysts are always right... I think this really is the bottom line. Currently the 747-400 is *the* airplane for the super-jumbo market. Because of this there is no reason for Boeing to rush development on a plane that's market will come at the expense of one of their existing products. The optimal strategy for Boeing is to delay investing money into this project for as long as possible (i.e., maintain the status quo). The only time that should change is when it is clear that Airbus will challenge the 747's market, and then Boeing just needs to get their product to market before Airbus. I expect Boeing to start work on a 747-500/600 when they think that Airbus is 5 years from bring a plane to market. Any money invested before that time is poorly spent, IMHO. Terry "an-opinion-on-every-topic" Schell From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:21 From: Jan Polcher Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: <3306F5D9.6405B5CB@lmd.ens.fr> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure Fridays 16th, Le Monde had a very interesting article on the battle between Boeing and Airbus for the >500 class. In essence it said that the stretched 747 could not compete with the A3XX for launch customers. Boeing is now offering a brand new aircraft for 2006 to avoid airlines choosing the Airbus product. It is also reported that Boeing is threatening it's sub-contractors if they should participate in the A3XX project. This might lead the European Union to oppose the merger of Boeing and MD once it is officially announced. This is only a very short resume of the article in Le Monde. Perhaps somebody can scan it and distribute it ( with a translation if possible) to this newsgroup ! > C. Marin Faure wrote on 13 Feb 97: > > All I can say is that you would be amazed at how fast Boeing could eate > 747-500/600 if a true market emerged. But if both projects went ahead > der your last scenario, it was already acknowledged that the 747 > ivatives would beat the A3xx to market by several years. Perhaps, but this market will probably only take off in 5 years or so. Who will then want to start with an aircraft which is limited by it's old design. When you design a brand new plane you can take into account all the needs of the airlines without beeing limited by history. I think especially the hump of the 747 is a problem. It looks nice but without it you have news possibilities. The diameter of the 747 fuselage is probably also a limiting factor for the 500 and 600 versions. The 747-400 had it's share of problems, perhaps this also cooled off airlines. Are the plans of the 747 now all in digital forms and can it's evolution be done on computers ? > Also, most > rket and financial analysts seem to feel that the cost and time-to > oduce-projections by Airbus for the A3XX are WAY underestimated. But en > who says analysts are always right... This is probably the largest problems with this new class of airplanes, the money !! Apparently companies in the US and Asia are interested in helping Airbus to finance their project. Here Boeing will certainly try to put on the pressure and kill the project. Best regards Jan Jan Polcher TEL: -33-1-44322243 Laboratoire de M=E9t=E9orologie Dynamique du CNRS FAX: -33-1-43368392 =C9cole Normale Sup=E9rieure 24, rue Lhomond 75231 PARIS cedex 05, FRANCE http://www.lmd.ens.fr/~polcher/ polcher@lmd.ens.fr From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:21 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Fridays 16th, Le Monde had a very interesting article on the battle >between Boeing and Airbus for the >500 class. ... >Boeing is now offering a brand new aircraft for 2006 to avoid >airlines choosing the Airbus product. It is also reported that Boeing >is threatening it's sub-contractors if they should participate in the >A3XX project. Sounds more like propaganda than educated reporting. Boeing people seem to know nothing about offering a brand new aircraft. Quite the contrary, Boeing seems to be focusing its efforts on derivatives of its large twins, the 767 and 777. See the current (February 17, 1997) Aviation Week, p. 60, for an article on the subject including several quotes from Michael B. Bair, Boeing's VP for Product Strategy and Development. One project, according to Bair, is a 777-200X with 720,000 lbs MGTOW, allowing a range of 8,500-9,000 nm. (From Chicago, Perth is about the only interesting city outside that range. New York to Singapore or Auckland are possible, with Sydney being within reach if the 9,000 nm range is achieved. London to Perth is even possible, though the more commercially interesting eastern cities of Australia, and New Zealand, are still out of reach.) The article notes a Boeing market analysis that determined that most 747s have been purchased for range, not capacity. Here's how they broke down the choices: 60% range 30% capacity 10% Japanese domestic (obviously capacity, albeit specialized) Given the dramatic shift in the trans-Atlantic market from large planes flying between major hubs to smaller planes linking far more city pairs, overflying the hubs, this shouldn't be too surprising. With more liberal aviation agreements in the Asia/Pacific countries and planes with sufficient range, the same thing is inevitable in the Pacific. The answer to congestion at airports like Narita is not bigger planes to shove more people through there, it's overflying Narita wherever possible. United's ORD-HKG non-stop service is just a hint of what the future will bring just as soon as politics and longer range planes like the 777-200X allow 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 Wed Feb 19 02:46:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:21 From: Paul Michaels (Paul Michaels) Subject: Re: Blended-body snag? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Celtic International Ltd Reply-To: "P. Wezeman" wrote: Well snipped > Lockheed's drawing of a cargo spanloader showed standard 8x8 cargo >containers loaded into a hollow wing spar, so the compartments were >spanwise instead of fore and aft. Current drawings for blended-body >airliners show passengers behind the leading edge of the center section, >also with spanwise compartments. It seems to me that the main wing spars >would be well positioned to take the tension loads from floor to ceiling. >One of the advantages that has long been claimed for blended-body aircraft I can't see many passengers wanting to sit far away from the center of roll (except people who pay to ride rollercoasters). Wouldn't the additional movement during even gentle rolling manoeuvres be nauseating/frightening for the average passenger? I'm thinking of how the airlines felt they had to blank the first couple of windows at the front of a 747 (do they still do that?), this would be much more likely to frit 'em up than just seeing the clouds coming at you. -- Paul Michaels, Aberdaugleddau (Milford Haven), Wales Your mail will bounce if you don't know where Wales is. From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:21 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Blended-body snag? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Reply-To: "P. Wezeman" My earlier posting had my back-of-the-envelope calculations showing that a flat pressure cabin for a blended-body airliner is quite practical and can be designed as a set of intersecting cylinders. As should be expected, a real aeronautical engineer can do better than I can. In the book "Shorts Aircraft since 1900" by C.H. Barnes I came across a picture of a proposed flying wing airliner designed by Geoffrey Hill. He used a "quilted" pressure cabin made up of intersecting spheres. The tension links needed to hold the shape are then slim pillars set in a square array with about fifteen or twenty feet between pillars, with the arched ceiling between pillars giving a very spacious look to the cabin. The design was called the Pterodactly VIII and was submitted to the Brabazon Commission. It had five Rolls Royce Griffen engines with pusher props, and would seem to be made to the same specifications as the Bristol Brabazon. In a large blended-body airliner the average seat will not be as near a window as on conventional planes, to the extent that this is a problem. Each passenger could have a video display screen that could give an outside view as well as being used for entertainment and preflight safety briefings. I have read that it is or will soon be possible to combine the views of several digital television cameras onto a screen. This might allow the plane to have a set of external view cameras giving 360 degree coverage, and each passenger could look in any desired direction by combining the signals in their screen. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:21 From: ostreger@aol.com (Ostreger) Subject: Re: Blended-body snag? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk I'm a FW nut and want BBAs to work; I just can't see how they beat the pressurisation problem. Estimates of 10,000 pounds weight penalty don't approach mine - the catch is distortion, and consequent fatigue. The B-35 and B-49 had tiny cabins where this didn't apply. From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:21 From: "Rui Mayer" Subject: Airbus 320 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Hi, everyone. I have recently noticed that whenever I fly on A320's I develop serious synus crises, which cause me severe head and nose pain. The situation seems to develop minutes after when the aircraft reaches cruising altitude, and as soon as it starts descending it starts to improve gradually, so that when I reach an altitude around 10,000 - 12,000 ft the pain is miraculously gone. This seems not to happen on other types of aircraft - and recently I've flown B757, B767, A310, B737, and MD-80 series. I've also flown (quite safely) on B727, B747 and L500. I wonder if other people have the same problem, and if the situation can be linked to the pressurisation and humidity (or rather, lack of it) of the cabin air of the A320. Also, I would appreciate knowing if other people have had similar problems on other aircraft. Any replies welcome. Thanks to one and all. Rui Mayer From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:21 From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) Subject: A320 Groaning Noise Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Recently enjoyed my first flight on an A320 (via America West, out of Newark) and noticed a prolonged groaning noise that began shortly after takeoff while the engines were running at high power. The noise sounded like the kind of groan you sometimes hear briefly when wheels are retracted (if you're sitting right over the wheel wells), but it lasted 5 to 10 minutes, finally fading away when the angle of ascent leveled off. The noise returned during descent and lasted another 5 to 10 minutes. I have heard a kind of "buzz" from engines or resonating airframe on a 747 when it climbs after takeoff, but I'd never heard anything like this groaning sound before. Is it a well-known feature of the Airbus, and if so, does anyone know what causes it? I'm just curious. From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 From: D Snow Subject: Re: Airbus A320 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 13 Feb 1997, al M. wrote: > Hello Everyone:-) > Does anyone know if the A320 is considered a Heavy? > I know about the weight classification but I am looking along the lines > of the wind design, since the B757 is considered a Heavy Jet due to its > wake.. > Not even close, since the A320 weighs out at 142,200 as it max landing weight. The "Heavy" moniker was arbitrarily place at 300,000 a long time ago, and the B757 is almost a heavy at max takeoff weight. Some B757s at American Trans Air have a max takeoff of 255,500 lbs! (And I have the AFM to prove it!) ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie (Currently INOP) From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 From: probbe@micronet.fr (Patrick Robbe) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Francenet -- Paris, France On 13 Feb 97 01:37:38 , "al M." wrote: >Hello Everyone:-) >Does anyone know if the A320 is considered a Heavy? >I know about the weight classification but I am looking along the lines >of the wind design, since the B757 is considered a Heavy Jet due to its >wake.. > Hello! As far as I know, the A320 is considered to be a "Medium" aircraft as for wake turbulence & weight (between 65 and 77 tons MTOW depending on the version). Hope this helps... Patrick Robbe From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 From: Steve Harvey Subject: Re: Airbus A320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Teleserve Canada Inc. al M. wrote: > > Hello Everyone:-) > Does anyone know if the A320 is considered a Heavy? > I know about the weight classification but I am looking along the lines > of the wind design, since the B757 is considered a Heavy Jet due to its > wake.. The 757 is considered"heavy" by Air Trqaffic Sevices around the world because of the wake turbulance caused by the 757's high lift wing. It does nasty things to other aircraft following too closely behind. Increasing following distances to "heavy wake turbulance seperation minima" makes it safe for other aircraftfollowing- not affecting the 757. There have been cases reported of Learjets rolling onto their backs following behind 757s!! From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 From: rparpatt@uniserve.com (Thundercraft) Subject: Re: Old DC-10 attitude problem... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UNIServe Online In article , brock@dircon.co.uk says... > >In the original DC-10's, was there something wrong with their flying >attitude? I heard the backs had to be fitted as piano bars as >passengers in the last few rows became sick on flights. Thank you. I believe that was for marketing considerations. I believe that United also originally fitted the 747's with bars in the back when they first put them into service. Canadian Airlines stuffed (and still do) every seat that they could (keeping with their seat/pitch policies). From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: Question: Vertical speed on landing? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home In article , Andre Neves writes >Can somebody please tell me what is the vertical landing speed >limit for a B737 or B757 at MaxLandWeight (prior to any structural damage)? >Does it differ in a large amount from the empty figure? > Generally Boeing designs have a maximum 3g landing stress. I`ve seen a B757 that landed at 2.96g. It took 3 months to return to service. All views expressed are personal and _|_ do not necessarily reflect those of _____(_)_____ my employer ! ! ! ian@judgei.demon.co.uk http://www.judgei.demon.co.uk/ From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: Question: Vertical speed on landing? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of New South Wales Reply-To: tmaddern@cse.unsw.edu.au Andre Neves wrote: > > Can somebody please tell me what is the vertical landing speed > limit for a B737 or B757 at MaxLandWeight (prior to any structural damage)? > Does it differ in a large amount from the empty figure? > > thanks... >From memory the B747 and L1011 were certified for 10 feet per second at max landing weight and 6 feet per second at max structural weight. Somebody involved in the certification process may be able to verify if these are FAA cert. requirements. Tony Maddern From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: Question: Vertical speed on landing? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Your Organization >Can somebody please tell me what is the vertical landing speed >limit for a B737 or B757 at MaxLandWeight (prior to any structural damage)? For certification to FAR Part 25, I think the landing gear must pass a limit drop test at 10 ft/second at its maximum landing weight and 6 ft/sec at the maximum takeoff weight. Reserve energy gear drop testing is required at a higher sink rate, but I don't remember what it is. From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 From: eirikur@ix.netcom.com (Aristotle) Subject: Re: teeny vertical fins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) wrote: >You could be seeing VHF blade antennas. These are small (about a foot or so >in length) and hang from the VENTRAL side (underside) of the fuselage. the B747 - all models- have VHF sharkfin antenna mounted on BOTH the dorsal AND ventral sides. -as on most Boeing products. Regards, JCD A&P From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 From: miloro@cric.com (Scott Miloro) Subject: Re: teeny vertical fins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University at Buffalo In article , ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) writes... >In article , miloro@cric.com (Scott >Miloro) wrote: >>[snip] >You could be seeing VHF blade antennas. These are small (about a foot or so >in length) and hang from the VENTRAL side (underside) of the fuselage. Many folks have followed up by mail, and none of them mention the ventral side. You could probably visit any number of photo archives to see the dorsal VHF blade antennae. That said, I have also seen the ventral-side structures. My guess is that you are correct that they, too, are blade antennae. Speaking to the cases of B747-200 and 757, I have only seen the dorsal blade antennae - I will have a look at pics to see for myself (too lazy to go out to Logan.) Any guess as to possible advantages/disadvantages to the ventral placement of blade antennae? I think that on smaller a/c designers might worry about some lummox tweaking one, but who knows. >As for a "dorsal" fin, B737s have it - it is the extension of the leading edge >of the vertical stabilizer forward along the fuselage. That is to say, the leading edge of the vstab = a big blade antenna? [snip] -- Scott Miloro, Dept of Human Genetics Genome Therapeutics Corp, Waltham, MA, USA From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Nose loading (was: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F) References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Who can forget the all-stainless steel Bud Aircraft Conestoga? It had the cockpit mounted above the cargo hold and bulbous nose doors. Possibly one of the ugliest airplanes ever built. Actually, Flying Tigers started out life flying them. Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:23 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <33040120.1008570@news.concentric.net> <330cecc6.7929634@news.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article <330cecc6.7929634@news.concentric.net>, Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote: >If UA wants to capture the Japan<->Asia market, why then doesn't UA >create a Japanese subsidiary who would then operate under Japanese rules >and agreements ? Because most countries do not allow their own airlines to be controlled by foreigners. > >I can understand that US airlines such as US would love to be able to >capture Japan<->Asia traffic perhaps more than they want the US<->Asia >traffic. (higher yields etc). > >Lets look as Asia as a "continent", and the USA/Canada as a continent. >If Japan allows UA to carry Japanese from Japan to Indonesia for >instance, will the USA allow ANA or JAL to compete in the LAX-JFK route? That's domestic route, or cabotage traffic. Almost all countries do not allow foreign airlines to carry domestic traffic. Many foreign airlines have argued that the US should allow such traffic in return for their fifth-freedom traffic. However, I don't think it will happen any time soon. Some international airlines do have some fifth-freedom rights from the US. Just to name some airlines: Varig, VASP, JAL, Malaysia, Singapore, China Airlines, EVA, Korean, Cathay, Philippine, Air-India, Biman, Gulf Air, etc. >It is one thing to allow a foreign airline to hub at your airport to >help transfer its own passengers to onwards flights, but it is another >to allow a foreign airline to play in your own playing field. > For foreign airlines to tap the US domestic market, the most efficient way is through investing in US carriers. It will not be a simple task to establish an efficient subsidiary operation in the US even if the US allows foreign airlines do to so. The US carriers are in general very efficient. From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:23 From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <33040120.1008570@news.concentric.net> <330cecc6.7929634@news.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ampex Corporation Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > > If UA wants to capture the Japan<->Asia market, why then doesn't UA > create a Japanese subsidiary who would then operate under Japanese rules > and agreements ? Because Rule #1 says that "Foreign Airlines" means "Airlines owned by foreign nationals". In this case, a Japanese subsiduary of UAL would still be foreign. This rule is pretty much universal, for example in the US the magic number is a maximum of 25% foreign ownership. Malc. From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:23 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Questions about Regional Jets Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa This last week, the Wall Street Journal had an article about regional jets and the upcoming American Airlines strike. One interesting thing they mentioned was what the airlines call "turboprop aversion factor". According to airline people, passengers really dislike turboprop aircraft and the mere action of replacing a turboprop with a jet on a given route will increase passenger load by an average of twenty per cent. The article also said that the new Canadian regional jet has "ample legroom". Do they mean ample legroom in comparison to a typical small turboprop airliner or in comparison to a jetliner? If it's in comparison to an airliner, is it done as an amenity to attract passengers, or simply because a regional jet is physically incapable of flying when crammed full of people? Also, some people in this group have mentioned that the DC-9/MD-80 design could serve as the basis for a regional jet for Boing-McDonnell Douglas. Is this realistic, or would they be better off starting new? What would be involved? Could they just shorten it or would they have to lighten up the structure in proportion to the reduction in size? Thank you in anticipation, Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:23 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: A340 development Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services A few days ago, Airbus and GE announced that GE is not going to offer the GEXX for the proposed A340-600X due to differences in pricing and risk sharing. Pratt and R-R are ready to talk to Airbus. If Airbus does go ahead with the A340-600X using either a Pratt or R-R engine, then this will be the first time an Airbus airframe is not initially offered with either a GE or CFMI engine. The A340-600X needs a new engine so that the operation cost of the new plane can be competitive with Boeing products. I doubt Pratt will go ahead with the Advance Dcuted Prop (ADP). I'm not sure if R-R has any solid proposal on the table at this time (the RB411 has been mentioned before). Thus, IMHO, Airbus is caught in a awkward position. If it decides against the idea of launching the A340-600X (and -500X), then it will leave two market sectors to Boeing, namely the 400-seat market as well as the ultra-long-range (i.e., over 8,500 nm) market. IMHO, GE, with an exclusive engine agreement with Airbus, determined that the market is not big enough even for a single engine supplier to justify the spending of reportedly US$1 billion on the new engine. As an airline, I would think a mix of B777-200As, B777-200IGWs, B777-200Xs, B777-300s, and B777-300Xs with one engine type is much more desirable than a mix of A340-300s (B777-200IGW equivalent), A340-500X (B777-200X equivalent), and A340-600X (B777-300X equivalent) with two engine types and there are still no proper aircraft for two segments (i.e., B777-200A and B777-300). By including the A330-300 (B777-200A equivalent), you add another engine type to your fleet, and there is still no 375-seat class aircraft for medium-range operations. If Airbus does shelve the A340-500X/600X, then I think likelihood of Airbus launching the A3XX will greatly be increased. *********************************************************************** In case you are confused by the model numbers, the following is a rough classification of all A330/340 and B777 models (anything with an "X" suffix are models under study): Medium range Long range Ultra long range ~5,000 nm 6,500-7,500 nm ~8,500 nm 250-seat (767-400X) A330-200 A340-8000 v B777-100X A340-200 300-seat A330-300 v B777-200 A340-300 v B777-200IGW A340-500X v B777-200X 375-seat A330-400X v B777-300 A340-600X v B777-300X *********************************************************************** P.S. China Eastern has recently announced its Summer 97 schedule. The airline will operate all its LAX services with the MD-11 instead of the A340. Earlier, I have heard the airline was not happy with the long-range performance of the A340. The new schedule seems to confirm the unsubstantiated rumor. From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:23 From: joliver@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu (James Oliver) Subject: Connies on promo tour Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: joliver@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu I may be climbing up fools mountain thinking that this question can even be answered, but here goes. After WW II the Constellation apparently went on a promo tour to show the public this magnificent new airliner. Sometime around 1950 (may be a bit before or a bit after) a Connie came to Detroit (YIP) and the public was invited to tour the aircraft. Is there a Connie Specialist who might possibly know precisely which Connie came to Detroit? I do not recall any airline markings and I feel it was just billed as << The Constellation >>. I remember that souvenir postcards were handed out too. Clear skies to all, Jim OLIVER joliver@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:23 From: cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") Subject: Re: Bernard Ziegler References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Compulink Information eXchange >BTW, it was, the rumour mill had it, his TV performance that led to his >dismissal as head engineering honcho at Airbus. Not "not smiling" but >making a hash of the company's position in a German documentary about >Airbus safety. Not to mention the fact that he was 65 last year and had reached normal retirement age! cleyman From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:23 From: "al M." Subject: Airbus 3XX Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A.T.P. Hello Everyone: I read in Flying magazine that this new bird is going to carry about 600 pax and I was wondering if the 90 second rule of Evacuation is going to affect it. Can you imagine!!!... From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:23 From: Ken Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of North Texas Merlin Dorfman wrote: > > A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the > number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s. > A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been > a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS, > yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline > 707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines. > Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service > up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? If you go to Africa and the Middle East, you will find a number of B-707s still in service. The DC-8 was stretched which makes it more economical to continue flying than the 707; also the DC-8 was designed to have a longer fatigue-life (100,000 hours) than the 707 (60,000 hours). Ken Madden From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:23 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Totally unorganized Richard Nute wrote: >Somewhere, sometime, I was led to believe that the DC-8 has >an APU, while the 707 does not. >Without an APU, the 707 needs auxiliary ground equipment to >get the first engine started, while the DC-8 could be started >from its APU. >If true, the 707 can only go to airports with auxiliary ground >equipment. >I thought this was a serious negative factor for airlines, and >one big reason airlines favored the DC-8. No DC-8's as far as I know was delivered with APU's. Some were fitted with them during the conversion to CFM-56's. The APU was actually two 727 type APU's installed in the aft end of the C-2 cargo compt. They were contained in a pair of titanium (I think) enclosures. Exhaust was routed through ducts and exited foreward and a little below the wing leading edge. The exhaust ducts had a door which opened inward on apu start. The actuators on these were somewhat unreliable at first and would allow the door to close with the APU running, with predictable results. The mod was not very popular as most operators already had the necessary GSE in place to support the aircraft. Only one customer I know of had the APU's installed Also part of the mod was to replace the freon air conditioning system with an aircycle machine type system. -Seth Dillon From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:24 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Dave Lee wrote: > The 707 was produced by Boeing in the "Dash 80" form well before > Douglas produced the DC-8. The DC-7 had numerous backorders when the > Dash 80 came out. Douglas saw the writing on the wall, and even with > the backorders on the DC-7 giving them ample reason to sit on their > laurels, they commenced a task to develop a 4 engined plane which > became the DC-8. It was in response to Boeing. I hate to quibble, but that's not entirely true either. The project office for what eventually became the DC-8 jet airliner was set up at Douglas in 1952. The USAF's requirement for a jet powered tanker/transport was issued just prior to this happening, and it was a direct response to the USAF requirement that Douglas started looking seriously at four-engined jet airplanes. This is just about the same time Boeing started working seriously on the Dash-80 - which, btw, was also intended to be primarily a military tanker prototype which could be easily turned into an airliner. The main difference is that Boeing kept at it while Douglas dilly-dallied around building DC-6s and DC-7s. Boeing was Gen. Curtiss Lemay's favorite, so they naturally got the KC-135 contract. It was at that point that Douglas came along with their still-paper DC-8 and made it wider, etc (it's an old story). > When launched, the DC-8 was said to have a certain performance > characteristic and fuel consumption. Upone delivery the airlines were > disappointed to find that the stated performance and fuel consumption > was incorrect, and that the range of the plane was much less than > stated on the spec sheet. Hmmmm...that sure does have a familiar "MD-11" type ring to it, doesn't it? Perhaps the airlines should have learned something in 1958? > > The 707 was redesigned quickly after the DC-8 was launched, being the > "wider" one of the pair allowing six abreast seating while the Dash 80 > allowed only 5 abreast. The 707 is 1 inch wider inside than the DC-8 > thus becoming the wider of the pair. Actually, "re-designed" is a better term. At that point it was a game of catchup for Boeing (or so they thought), although overall, the early 707 was a superior product for long range flying (when the -320 model came along in 1959). It wasn't until the DC-8-50 & 60 series came along in the 1960s that the DC-8 ever really caught up with the 707 in any measure. Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:24 From: dceightray@airmail.net (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA On 13 Feb 97 01:37:42 , richn@sdd.hp.com (Rich Nute) wrote: >Somewhere, sometime, I was led to believe that the DC-8 has >an APU, while the 707 does not. > >Without an APU, the 707 needs auxiliary ground equipment to >get the first engine started, while the DC-8 could be started >from its APU. > >If true, the 707 can only go to airports with auxiliary ground >equipment. > >I thought this was a serious negative factor for airlines, and >one big reason airlines favored the DC-8. I don't think the 8 had an APU from the factory. Some cargo 8's now have APU installed in the forward belly compartment. It provides both air and electrical (AC) power Some 8's had an "Aux. Manifold" installed. A high pressure air bottle for engine start where no ground air was available. It was a one shot deal. Ray Clawson WARNING: The return email address field has been altered to foil bulk email spammers. If you reply to this message please change the "eight" to "8" in the return address or it'll bounce. From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:25 From: rparpatt@uniserve.com (Thundercraft) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UNIServe Online In article , richn@sdd.hp.com says... >Somewhere, sometime, I was led to believe that the DC-8 has >an APU, while the 707 does not. > >Without an APU, the 707 needs auxiliary ground equipment to >get the first engine started, while the DC-8 could be started >from its APU. I believe that the DC-8 used bleed air from onboard storage to start the first engine. From there they used bleed air from the running engine. I believe that most large a/c can use bleed air for starting (including those with apu's). Smaller a/c such as BAe146, Fokker 100, etc use electric starters. >If true, the 707 can only go to airports with auxiliary ground >equipment. > >I thought this was a serious negative factor for airlines, and >one big reason airlines favored the DC-8. Why did the 707 out-sell and out-last the DC-8??? Even though I am a dedicated Boeing fan, I will concede the point that the best looking jetliner ever built was the streched 8. It is the only plane made in the last 40 years that one can say had any sex appeal. (The previous winner was the super connie). From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:26 From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington In article , Dave Lee wrote: >When launched, the DC-8 was said to have a certain performance >characteristic and fuel consumption. Upone delivery the airlines were >disappointed to find that the stated performance and fuel consumption was >incorrect, and that the range of the plane was much less than stated on >the spec sheet. That's something the early 707-100s were also accused of. >The DC-8 suffered in long-range performance compared to the 707 due to its >having a less swept back wing angle than the 707. Er, quite a number of airlines picked the DC-8 for its range; the 707 and DC-8 leapfrogged each other a bit on the range front: Seats Range Year Model (Max) (St Mi) Engine Comment 1958 707-120 181 3000 JT3C-6 1959 DC-8-10 179 3800 JT3C-6 1959 707-320 189 4500 JT4A-3 Wing improvements 1960 DC-8-50 179 4800 JT3D-3B 1963 707-320B 202 5000 JT3D-3 1967 DC-8-62 189 5500 JT3D-7 Major airframe changes 1968 DC-8-63 252 5000 JT3D-7 S-t-r-e-t-c-h! 1970 747-100 ~400 5000 JT9D 1972 DC-10-30 ~250 6000+ CF6-6 With extra tankage The DC-8 was fundamentally better range-wise (although not as fast) than the 707-100, but not quite as good as the 707-320. Douglas only had one basic airframe up until 1967, and just changed the engines. Boeing made some significant wing improvements on the -320, rammed home by finally putting some decent engines on the -320B. it often seems to me that Douglas were always just a wee bit better than Boeing at building a wee bit more into a basic airframe, and then exploiting it later when engines became available, or a need demanded. Boeing on the other hand always seemed a wee bit better at modifying an airframe to achieve a given need. -- 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 Feb 19 02:46:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:26 From: gerhard Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OnRamp Technologies; ISP; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA Rich Nute wrote: > > Somewhere, sometime, I was led to believe that the DC-8 has > an APU, while the 707 does not. The DC-8 does not have an APU as standard, from the factory equipment. It's my understanding that UAL added an APU to their airplanes when the CFM-56s were installed. DL's DC-8s did not have APUs while they were with DL. From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:26 From: Mark McLean Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A customer of Pacific Bell Internet Services I'm new to the newsgroup and have been reading this thread. Very interesting, indeed. And I have a question that may have been already answered, so please bear with me. I'm a long-time fan of the DC-8, and probably flew it (as a passenger) in the USA as long as it was available here. UAL (were they the last domestic US carrier to fly them?) was flying a few of them up to about five or six years ago (they often flew them ORD-SAN -- my route). Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to fly the 707. Is there anywhere in the USA that one might be able to fly one without leaving the country? (or even leaving the country, for that matter?). Am interested in doing it at least once. Thanks for your help. Mark McLean mmclean@pacbell.net From kls Wed Feb 19 02:46:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Feb 97 02:46:26 From: "Tim Halen" Subject: Re: Concorde diversion to Halifax? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Dieder Bylsma wrote in article ... > Just saw a photo in a newspaper of the Concorde at an airport-gate in > Halifax. Caption said that it had diverted to Halifax yesterday or the > day before from London-NYC as a result of an emergency? Any details > available? Concorde was indeed in Halifax, last Friday I believe. The news here stated that the diversion was due to "problems" with one of its engines. A 747 enroute to JFK was diverted to pick up the pax. The aircraft remained in YHZ for a day or two, and was then three-engine ferried to New York. In a TV interview, when asked how he planned to spend his time in Halifax, the captain replied (imagine this in your best English accent): "I plan to go to the hotel, and order a large beer." Cheers Tim Halen From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:33 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) >Does anyone know if the A320 is considered a Heavy? [vs 757] Some people has claimed the 757 un-heavy status could just possibly be linked to its use at a specific Downtown Convenient Airport in an area known for heavy political activity. My reaction to that would be the classic: "I'm shocked! Simply shocked to find there is GAMBLING going on in here." "Your winnings, sir.." -- 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....................................20915-1433 From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:34 From: matthew_harrison@bio-rad.com Subject: Re: A320 Groaning Noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bio-Rad MicroScience UK Reply-To: matthew_harrison@bio-rad.com That reminds me of the angry djinn that lived in the toilets of a 747 I once flew in. The suction sound whenever the toilets were flushed sounded very ghostly. :?) Matthew Harrison, Software Engineer, Bio-Rad MicroScience UK. (Hemel Hempstead) From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:36 From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. In article , probbe@micronet.fr (Patrick Robbe) wrote: >As far as I know, the A320 is considered to be a "Medium" aircraft as >for wake turbulence & weight (between 65 and 77 tons MTOW depending on >the version). Medium??? Never heard the term used to describe airplanes. In the U.S, there's small (41,000 lbs. or less), large (over 41,000 up to 255,000 lbs.), and heavy (over 255,000 lbs). Reference: Airman's Information Manual Pilot/Controller Glossary. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:36 From: speedpuppy Subject: Re: Airbus A320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: dargonis@mindspring.com al M. wrote: > > Hello Everyone:-) > Does anyone know if the A320 is considered a Heavy? > I know about the weight classification but I am looking along the lines > of the wind design, since the B757 is considered a Heavy Jet due to its > wake.. according to the faa and atc HEAVY is designated by the max gross takeoff weight....those in excess of 300,000lbs.... the 757 beacause of its wake turbulence properties must conform (atc procedures) to heavy requirements...min separation of 2mins or 5miles in trail but it is not called a heavy... -- http://www.webbuild.com/~dargonis/planes.htm From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:37 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Previously, I wrote: > >If you exclude second-hand B747 market, the B747 > >probably has around 20 to 30 customers, only. And in article Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) provided some Boeing data: > > The breakdown by series for the 747 is also interesting: > > --- Deliveries --- - Customers - > Model US Non-US Total US Non-US Tot > 747-100 124 126 250 10 22 32 > 747-200 54 339 393 9 50 59 > 747-300 3 78 81 1 18 19 > 747-400 42 239 281 3 28 31 > 747-400D 0 19 19 0 2 2 > 747-400F 0 11 11 0 5 5 > 747-400M 0 47 47 0 12 12 > My conclusion was definitely way off. However, if we only consider the B747-400 program, deducing from Karl's list, there are around 34 customers (i.e., 31 -400 customers, plus one customer with only the -400F [Cargolux], and two customers with only the -400M [Air Canada and Kuwait]). (The -400 is by far the bese-selling B747 series. Since the -400 was launched in the mid-80s, Boeing has sold more than 500 -400s. I believe Boeing had sold around 400 -200s which was in production for about 15 years.) The "superjumbo" clientele will not be too different from the B747-400 customer base. If an airline does not need the -400, there is no reason why it will need a superjumbo. Thus, we are looking at about 25 to 30 potential superjumbo customers, 10 to 15 of them being "solid" customers with sizable needs. Currently, Airbus is talking to 19 airlines. Anyway, I read an article in today's (2/19) Financial Times about the A3XX. It seems Airbus has altered its A3XX offerings. Now, the base model (the -100) will carry less than 500 passengers (about 50 less than the earlier proposal), and the -200 will carry over 600 passengers. Airbus also said that it will not build a 400-seater. I'm not sure if it means Airbus will not build a 375-seater (i.e., A340-600X). From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:39 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: > > > Given the dramatic shift in the trans-Atlantic market from large > planes flying between major hubs to smaller planes linking far more > city pairs, overflying the hubs, this shouldn't be too surprising. > With more liberal aviation agreements in the Asia/Pacific countries > and planes with sufficient range, the same thing is inevitable in the > Pacific. Some market fragmentation will occur in the trans-Pacific market with the availability of the proposed ultra-long-range planes like the B777-200X and the A340-500X. However, I just don't think you will see the same magnitude of transformation to take place in the Asia/Pacific market as it did in the trans-Atlantic market. > > The answer to congestion at airports like Narita is not bigger planes > to shove more people through there, it's overflying Narita wherever > possible. United's ORD-HKG non-stop service is just a hint of what > the future will bring just as soon as politics and longer range planes > like the 777-200X allow it. > One thing peculiar of the Asia/Pacific market is the Japanese carriers have significantly higher operating costs than most other East Asian carriers. Furthermore, Japan is unlikely to open up its market to the extent that the US will like any time soon. Thus, yields on routes to/through Japan will remain high. OTOH, to other parts of Asia, US carriers don't have that overwhelming cost advantage. That's why US carriers are not very interested in non-stop services to places other than Japan. Hong Kong is the lone exception with sizable non-stop services by US carriers: UA has 3 daily non-stop (plus 3 weekly seasonal service from ORD), NW also has 3 or 4 weekly services from SEA to HKG. Seoul is second with 4 weekly NW non-stop service, and one daily non-stop flight each by UA and DL. (One may think 18 weekly flights are not insignificant, but if you compare with what Korean Air and Asiana have, the US carriers are dwarfed by the Korean competitors.) UA also has one daily non-stop service to Taipei, and NW has 3 weekly services from Detroit to Beijing. If the two biggest players are unwilling to change its operation pattern (NW in particular), what other smaller carriers do will not impact the market too much. Case and point: non-stop services between the US and Korea as well as Taiwan have been significantly increased with new carriers like Korea's Asiana, Taiwan's EVA Air and fifth-freedom operators like Singapore, Thai International, and Malaysia. OTOH, US carriers have noticeably reduced their presence in these two markets. Therefore, I believe as long as yields on Japanese routes remain high and yields on non-Japanese routes remain low, planes like the 777-200X and A340-500X will not have a significant impact on Trans-Pacific market. UA, and NW will remain serving the rest of Asia with the lucrative Japan-Asian traffic rights. Even for Asian airlines like Singapore, they may introduce SIN-LAX non-stop services with planes like the 777-200X, but do you really think SQ will give up its profitable US services via Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt? With less than 300,000 people traveling between Singapore and the US annually, why do you think UA, SQ, and NW can viably offer nearly eight daily B747 flights between the two countries? (There are also quite a few airlines carrying six-freedom traffic between Singapore and the US.) In contrast, almost all Western European airlines have higher operating costs than US carriers. Hence, it made sense economically for some (big) US carriers to pioneer non-stop services between secondary trans-Atlantic cities pairs. Another thing that has not been discussed here is intra-Asian traffic. Unlike in Europe, surface transportation in East Asia is either poorly developed or limited due to geographical barriers. Also, Asian population centers tend to be more populated than European and American cities. Example of poor surface transportation: One can take an over-night train to travel from Amsterdam to Zurich, but it will take at least two days to travel from Hong Kong to Beijing by train. Example of travel between heavily populated cities: Even in Japan, where there are bullet trains, the B747 is still heavily used between Osaka and Tokyo. Examples of geograpical barriers: To travel from Hong Kong to Tokyo, or Taipei to Hong Kong, or Tokyo to Singapore, air travel is pratically the only sensible means of transportation. With four times the population of the US, if people in China or India are half as affluent as people in the US, the demand for air travel will be immense. It will probably takes a long time for India to reach that goal. However, I think China may reach that milestone in probably ten to fifteen years. With more than half of the B747-400, B777 and nearly half of the A330/340 being sold to Asian airlines, I believe many of these Asian airlines will need some "superjumbos". Whether there will be enough demand for Airbus or Boeing to have a profitable program, I don't know. Nevertheless, I do see a need for the plane. From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:40 From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >The answer to congestion at airports like Narita is not bigger planes >to shove more people through there, it's overflying Narita wherever >possible. United's ORD-HKG non-stop service is just a hint of what >the future will bring just as soon as politics and longer range planes >like the 777-200X allow it. > The problem with Narita isn't that it is being overused as a hub when there should be direct flights, it's that an airport with a single runway is being used for virtually all international traffic out of one of the world's largest cities, which happens to be the principal city of the world's second largest economy. Narita is woefully inadequate for serving Tokyo, even if you discount onward traffic. There is of course a fair argument that the solution is to build more airport capacity, not larger aircraft, and this is of course true. However, in Japan this is politically very difficult. While it remains politically difficult, there is a market for a larger aircraft. There are only a few airports worldwide for which this sort of argument applies, so the market for such an aircraft at present is only a niche market. However, it is a real one. Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk "`I need every aluminum can you can find! And duct tape!" From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:40 From: matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) Subject: Re: A340 development References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. In article , Chuanga@cris.com says... > >A few days ago, Airbus and GE announced that GE is not going to offer the >GEXX for the proposed A340-600X due to differences in pricing and risk >sharing. Pratt and R-R are ready to talk to Airbus. If Airbus does go >ahead with the A340-600X using either a Pratt or R-R engine, then this >will be the first time an Airbus airframe is not initially offered with >either a GE or CFMI engine. GE has traditionally been pretty savy on the management side, so if GE doesn't want the business, as Andrew points out, there is probably something seriously wrong with it. I pointed out in a post regarding the 747-500/600 program that Airbus's market size estimates approach twice what anyone else thinks the market is. The current experience is I doubt an all new engine can be developed for only a billion USD. The last round of engine purchases makes it fairly clear that neither GE, RR or PW expects to make much money on engines anytime soon. The only hope is sole source deals, and GE appears to have essentially walked away from this one. The high cost of R&D is what drove the GE/PW alliance for the 747-500/600 engine program. PW isn't likely to get any support for European tax payers to develop the thing, and I doubt RR can expect much more. Add to that RR is going to take a pretty good size hit when the smoke clears over the RB211-524G/H reliablity and fuel consumption problems. Now have to wonder if perhaps that issue may have been one that was involved in BA's decision to put GE-90's on their 777's. I am lead to believe by a conversation with senior management of one RR powered 747-400 operator that the engines do not meet guarantees, (and never will, RR abandoned the 'get well' program). That is likely to be continuing drain on RR's income, although I don't know how much of one it is. >The A340-600X needs a new engine so that the operation cost of the new >plane can be competitive with Boeing products. I doubt Pratt will go >ahead with the Advance Dcuted Prop (ADP). Unless there is a dramatic and permanent upturn in fuel prices to well past 1USD per gallon before taxes, I think the prop-fans are dead. In addition, the current week's Aviation Week and Space Technology reports a 777-200IGW+ is in the works, and that will push the 777-200 range well past the 7000nm mark. I think is the kind of news Airbus would rather not be hearing. IMHO, Boeing has very quietly attacked Airbus where it is going to hurt. The high cruise speed on the 777 relative to the A340 suggests there are almost no long haul circumstances where the A340 will get you there sooner than the 777 IGW+ even if you have to make a stop, and a thumbnail calculation of 777IGW+ versus A340 on a 7500nm sector suggests the 777 arrives about 75 minutes before the A340! So on an 8500nm sector, it is very possible the 777 will arrive sooner EVEN it has to stop somewhere!! (A340 long range economy cruise is assumed to be M.78, 777's routinely fly at M.85). The final problem is that if you really overestimate the size of the market, each aircraft carries a big R&D price tag with it. I suspect that in the final analysis that is part of what stopped the 747-500/600. High R&D cost, and in the final analysis, the increased capital cost of the aircraft was going to offset any potential ASM savings. I.E total operating costs may not be any better than the current 747-400. My opinions anyway.. From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:41 From: "Hans Jakobsson" Subject: DC-8-61/63 window question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: . I have seen that the two last cabin windows on each side on some stretched DC-8 (ex-Eastern among others) are closer together. Why is this (the same applies to the Lockheed Electra which has three windows very close to each other in the tail section)? Second question; does all Airborne Express/Burlington/Emery etc DC-8-63 freighters have their windows plugged, or are the inside walls covered with plastic like some 747F's? Thank you in advance for any assistance, please send a copy of your answer to my email at hansj@algonet.se since my ISP doesn't seem to update this newsgroup properly. Best Regards Hans Jakobsson =========================== hansj@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~hansj =========================== From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:42 From: Matthew Willshee <96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Airbus 3XX References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge, England On 19 Feb 1997, al M. wrote: > Hello Everyone: > I read in Flying magazine that this new bird is going to carry about 600 > pax and I was wondering if the 90 second rule of Evacuation is going to > affect it. Can you imagine!!!... > In the UK recently, BBC TV screened a series of documentaries on engineering feats. One was called something like "Biggest Aircraft" and looked at the A3XX. One of the major design concerns was evacuation and it had an effect on the number and positions of doors. The aim was to achieve a set maximum distance to the nearest emergency exit from each seat. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Matthew Willshee (Engineering Undergraduate) E-Mail: mjw44@cam.ac.uk Churchill College, Cambridge, : 96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:42 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Dumb Douglas: nee - DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In rparpatt@uniserve.com (Thundercraft) writes: > >Why did the 707 out-sell and out-last the DC-8??? Douglas killed the DC-8 to launch the DC-10. They broke up the DC-8 tooling and converted the factory to DC-10. At the time, Flying Tigers wanted to place an order for 25 DC8-6x to be delivered at any rate DAC wanted to build them. DAC refused, and FTL never bought another new Douglas airplane. Among Monumental Dumb Decisions, that ranks high. They could still be building DC-8s, with a modern cockpit and new autopilot. UPS is so taken with the DC-8 they spent big bucks to do just that. It is unprecedented for a new autopilot to be certified in an existing jet transport airframe, but UPS did it. rd From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:43 From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <33040120.1008570@news.concentric.net> <330cecc6.7929634@news.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP In article , H Andrew Chuang wrote: >In article <330cecc6.7929634@news.concentric.net>, >Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote: >>If UA wants to capture the Japan<->Asia market, why then doesn't UA >>create a Japanese subsidiary who would then operate under Japanese rules >>and agreements ? > >Because most countries do not allow their own airlines to be controlled >by foreigners. > And because trying to create an airline in Japan is somewhat difficult, even if you are Japanese. (Until very recently, the word was 'impossible', not 'very difficult'. That's right. There was a law against the creation of any new airline). And because if foreigners control an airline, it is unlikely to be recognised as 'Japanese' by many of the other countries you try it to. Aviation worldwide is a mass as protectionism. Get used to it. Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk "`I need every aluminum can you can find! And duct tape!" From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:44 From: reita@thomson-lcr.fr (Carlo Reita) Subject: Re: A330-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Thomson-CSF, Laboratoire Central de Recherches, Orsay, France In article , TUKANO wrote: >Marc SCHAEFFER wrote: >> >> - Who can tell me why Air Inter gets rid of the A330-300 >> (no more needed, poor performance, ???) > >Hi, >Air Inter is leasing out their A 330s, because the domestic french air >market has changed. The time of the monopoly of Air Inter is over since >1995, and competition means that they had to offer more frequencies vs >big aircraft. Air Inter is not able to fill the A330s on Toulouse-Orly >e.g. anymore. Their new strategy consists of putting a flight every half >an hour, but it is economically (probably) only suitable with A319s or >A320s. As a frequent customer of AI I can confirm this analysis. Since 95 you can choose between three companies to fly to Orly-Marseille (the route where the A330 where mostly used, it is a 70 minutes flight) and the fare has come down at least 30%. As a consequence, the AI A330 were mostly half empty. The same holds for Orly-Toulouse, on which the first flight in the morning is now done with a Fokker 100. Air Inter, now part of Air France, is redefining the route and timetable structure, going towards a system of shuttles on the main routes. Unfortunately they maintain outrageous prices on the lines where they do not, and probably will never, have competition(e.g. Orly-Grenoble, Orly-Strasbourg). Anyway, at present, a series of strikes by the AI pilots unhappy with the conditions of the merger is causing a decrease of traffic and a lot of hassle. As another post pointed out, there are a series of links that have already been abandoned in favour of the high speed trains (TGV) like Paris-Lyon (1.5 hour by train, town center to town center), Paris-Lille (1 hour), Paris-Rennes (1 hour) and this movement can continue for the destination that are at 2 to 3 hours away by train (Marseille is 5) if Air France does not provide an improvement of the service. For the moment they have entered a 'bras de fer' with the pilots, cancelling all flights anytime the unions call for a strike (usually not more than 50% of pilots used to adhere to the strike). The customer can only wait or go to the train station, the fares are lower, the accomodation far better (TGV second class train seats are wider than business class AF seats). In my opinion, the train competition will be strong also on the Paris-London route when the british will complete the high speed link between Dover and London. Now it takes 3 hours and it will take about 2.25, to compare with the time it takes to get from London center to HTW at 17.00. Carlo Reita From kls Fri Feb 21 01:10:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Feb 97 01:10:45 From: mohica@ix.netcom.com (William L. Thomas) Subject: BA 146 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom I used to see many of the STOL BA 146(?)flying throughout the US. The last few years they seem to have disappeared. Where did they go and what was the cause of their demise? Bill Thomas From news Sun Feb 2 18:46:50 1997 Path: ditka!daver!amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news2.acs.oakland.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!news From: cschul@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Christopher Schul) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Subject: Re: UPS Weekend Passenger Service (was: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 03:47:25 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Sender: MTA-IC Moderator Approved: aircargo@concentric.net Message-ID: <3301bc89.14095278@news.concentric.net> References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> I believe UPS intends to start pax service with B727 aircraft. Most of their -100 series aircraft are re-engined with RR Tay 651 engines. Cockpits have been standardized, using a Collins EFIS system. They are former passenger aircraft and no doubt will have window plugs traded in for the real thing! Although UPS is based in ATL, their airline ops are of course based at SDF. Chris Schul SAT From news Wed Feb 12 05:14:20 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!144.212.100.12!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!news From: tedrail@aol.com Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:31:44 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Sender: MTA-IC Moderator Approved: aircargo@concentric.net Message-ID: <33040120.1008570@news.concentric.net> References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Northwest just recently signed a marketing agreement with Garuda for code share in that part of the world. Should make things interesting in regards to NW getting the over KIX route to JKT From news Fri Feb 14 19:12:11 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!news From: gibrien@atcon.com (George Brien) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 22:49:42 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Sender: MTA-IC Moderator Approved: aircargo@concentric.net Message-ID: <3309ebd3.7686152@news.concentric.net> References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <:> <32fe7206.4973594@news.concentric.net> BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Brian Maddison) wrote: >In article >"David Smith" writes: >>When was the Bristol Freighter introduced? I don't suppose it antedated >>the >Me 323 Gigant of WWII which had clamshell nose doors and a cockpit >>above the cargo hold? Or the Fairchild C-82 Packet of the late 1940s? >The Bristol 170 first flew in December 1945, the XC-82 in September 1944. snip I first "met' the Bristol Freighter when it was flying in Maritime Central Airways= they were flying charter work for the DEW line and altho it was a freighter, a few web seats were in the back when I flew out of N Labrador to Goose Bay. Altho it was late Aug. I still remember the snow and cold air blowing in around the front doors. Later I saw them often with Air Canada- where the following story came from > LGA twr. AC flt 582 please identify you aircraft type AC 582 acft type Bristol Freighter Lga twr. did you build it yourself?? >-- >Brian Maddison >ITSD Support E209 Phone:387-5485 FAX:387-6086 From news Fri Feb 14 19:12:12 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!199.94.215.18!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!news From: Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 22:52:56 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Sender: MTA-IC Moderator Approved: aircargo@concentric.net Message-ID: <330cecc6.7929634@news.concentric.net> References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <33040120.1008570@news.concentric.net> If UA wants to capture the Japan<->Asia market, why then doesn't UA create a Japanese subsidiary who would then operate under Japanese rules and agreements ? I can understand that US airlines such as US would love to be able to capture Japan<->Asia traffic perhaps more than they want the US<->Asia traffic. (higher yields etc). Lets look as Asia as a "continent", and the USA/Canada as a continent. If Japan allows UA to carry Japanese from Japan to Indonesia for instance, will the USA allow ANA or JAL to compete in the LAX-JFK route? It is one thing to allow a foreign airline to hub at your airport to help transfer its own passengers to onwards flights, but it is another to allow a foreign airline to play in your own playing field. From news Sat Feb 15 11:09:43 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!jobone!news2.acs.oakland.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: 1997 Aircraft Order Update (Feb 15, 1997) Date: 15 Feb 1997 16:12:39 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5e4n9n$824@chronicle.concentric.net> I have not made a final update for the 1996 list. I plan to update it in a week or two. The URL of the hypertext version of this list is http://www.cris.com/~chuanga/order_book.shtml *** 1997 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Feb 15, 97) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N |BU | 2| 6 | | N |CX | 1R 2| | | N |OU | 6U | | | N |BR | | | 2G| N |KA | 1R | | | N |3Q | | 3 | | N |CA | | 2P | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 6 2 4| 3 6 2 | 2| | 1997 | A I R B U S ( 12 ) | B O E I N G ( 11 ) |MD( 2)| Total by Engine Manufacturers | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| |BMW/RR | | | | |CFMI | 4| 3 6 | | |GEAE | | | | |IAE | | | | |P&W | | 2 | | |R-R | 2 | | | |Unknown| 6 | | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 6 2 4| 3 6 2 | 2| | 1997 | A I R B U S ( 12 ) | B O E I N G ( 11 ) |MD( 2)| Announced Letters of Intent | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N |H4 | | 4 3 3 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 6 2 4| 7 6 3 2 3 | 2| | 1997 | A I R B U S ( 12 ) | B O E I N G ( 21 ) |MD( 2)| 1 N in the first column indicates new (or missed) order since the last update. 2 The engine selection (other than the A340, B737) is indicated by the letter behind each order number. B,C,G,I,P, or R stands for BMW/R-R, CFMI, GEAE, IAE, P&W, or R-R, respectively; U for undecided/unknown. 3 The A300/310 is kept under one column, so is the 737-300/400/500 (*345), as well as the MD80/90/95. (The MD80/90/95 order can be easily distiguished by engine selection: P for MD80, I for MD90, and B for MD95). 4 Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@cris.com) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. Airline Code: 3Q - Yunnan BR - EVA Airways BU - Braathens SAFE CA - Air China CX - Cathay Pacific H4 - Hainan KA - DragonAir OU - Croatia From news Sat Feb 15 11:09:43 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu!news2.acs.oakland.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: 1997 Aircraft Order Update (Feb 15, 1997) Date: 15 Feb 1997 16:17:15 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5e4nib$8vj@chronicle.concentric.net> References: <5e4n9n$824@chronicle.concentric.net> In article <5e4n9n$824@chronicle.concentric.net>, I wrote: > > *** 1997 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Feb 15, 97) *** > > | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | > | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| > |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| >N |BU | 2| 6 | | ^^ I guess I goofed. No, Braathens SAFE did not order the A340. Sorry! From news Mon Feb 17 17:25:54 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!199.94.215.18!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu!news2.acs.oakland.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!news From: rccsta@aol.com (RC CSTA) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Subject: Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:14:59 GMT Organization: CSTA Cargo Shipping Transportation Analysts Sender: MTA-IC Moderator Approved: aircargo@concentric.net Message-ID: <331667ac.2077185@news.concentric.net> References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> Why should UA have to create a Japanese subsidary ? Bi-lateral and Multi-lateral agreements can be negotiated and it's up those doing the negotiating to obtain equal rights of passage on behalf of their home carriers. The example you've used related to Japan- Indonesia compared to LAX-JFK is mixing apples with oranges.Japan -Indonesia would fall under 5th freedom negoatiation while LAX/JFK is presently considered cabotage. An equal example of cabotage would be NRT/OSA. However code sharing has been utilized to circumvent cabotage. Just my 2 cents thrown into the mix. Robert F. Caton President CSTA Cargo Shipping Transportation Analysts Phone 516-862-1259 Fax 516-862-1443 Bus E-mail csta@mail.idt.net Per E-mail RCCSTA@aol.com " The Successful Growth of the Air Industry Tomorrow will Come from the Transportation Visionaries of Today" From news Thu Feb 20 19:32:36 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!199.94.215.18!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news2.acs.oakland.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!news From: Michael Butler Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Subject: Re: Nose loading (was: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:16:59 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Sender: MTA-IC Moderator Approved: aircargo@concentric.net Message-ID: <330d3265.302073@news.concentric.net> References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> J. Heilig wrote: > > Who can forget the all-stainless steel Bud Aircraft Conestoga? It had > the cockpit mounted above the cargo hold and bulbous nose doors. > Possibly one of the ugliest airplanes ever built. Actually, Flying > Tigers started out life flying them. > > Jennings Heilig With a first flight in October 1943 it beats the C82 and Bristol 170. This must make it the first of the powered high cockpit nose door aircraft. Mike Butler From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:55 From: maclure@cvsrf1.arc.nasa.gov (MacLure) Subject: Re: 747SP Flight Training References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Ames Research Center maclure@cvsrf1.arc.nasa.gov (MacLure) writes: >I've been asked a question regarding the SP ( short fuselage >long-range ) 747 variant. >I don't believe any simulators were ever built for this type >which leads to the question: "How was training done?" >I suspect that the systems were similar enough to the -100 >model that some training could be done on -100 sims. The >question of flight training would however be a different >story. Seek and ye shall find department. It turns out one of my colleagues ( ex-Pan Am ) was able to answer the question. Link-Miles built 1 B747SP sim back about 1980. It was located here at SFO airport. When Pan Am went south the sim went to Miami. Where it is now, I haven't a clue. Given the number of SPs that were built and the economics of the training world at the time, one sim is about what you would have expected. IBM - ############## No Times Like The Maritimes, Eh! ##################### IBM aka # Ian_Maclure@QMGATE.arc.nasa.gov (desk) Ian B MacLure # maclure@(remulak/cvsrf1).arc.nasa.gov(currently) Opinions expressed here are mine, mine, mine.(YOOHOO NSA[PU,PCP,PGP]) From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:56 From: Tim_Reedman@msn.com Subject: Re: 747SP Flight Training References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:04:23 GMT, maclure@cvsrf1.arc.nasa.gov (MacLure) wrote: >I've been asked a question regarding the SP ( short fuselage >long-range ) 747 variant. > >I don't believe any simulators were ever built for this type >which leads to the question: "How was training done?" > >I suspect that the systems were similar enough to the -100 >model that some training could be done on -100 sims. You are quite correct. 747-SP training is done in 747 100/200 & 300 simulators. Tim From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:56 From: Robert Carpenter Subject: Maybe Boeing was Right Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via CAIS Internet Reply-To: rcarpen@lan2wan.com Flight International says that Airbus has withdrawn all of US Air's 1998 and 1999 delivery positions because USAir has been unable to (1) come up with the money, and (2) obtain wage concessions from staff. So the hundreds of Airbuses won't be arriving soon at USAir. Maybe Boeing was right in taking a walk from sales to US Air. Or maybe this is just more hardball for US Air in its staff wage negotiations. Time may tell. Bob Carpenter From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:56 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Dumb Douglas: nee - DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: : Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium RD Rick (rickydik@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : In rparpatt@uniserve.com : (Thundercraft) writes: : > : >Why did the 707 out-sell and out-last the DC-8??? : Douglas killed the DC-8 to launch the DC-10. They broke up the : DC-8 tooling and converted the factory to DC-10. At the time, Flying : Tigers wanted to place an order for 25 DC8-6x to be delivered at any : rate DAC wanted to build them. DAC refused, and FTL never bought : another new Douglas airplane. Was the CFM allready in the works then? I remember reading in a story about SPANTAX, a Spanish charter airline, that they were planning to re-fan their Super sixties, should the offer be made, but I think that was with the JTD8? Memory is tenuous. : Among Monumental Dumb Decisions, that ranks high. They could still be : building DC-8s, with a modern cockpit and new autopilot. UPS is so : taken with the DC-8 they spent big bucks to do just that. It is : unprecedented for a new autopilot to be certified in an existing jet : transport airframe, but UPS did it. In addition, the fuselage could have become a major part of a new airliner with two modern, high-bypass engines, sort of a 757 avant la lettre. (There was talk about McDonnel-Douglass cooperating with Dassault to offer the Mercure as a DC-9 replacement) Add a DC-10 derivate with the central engine chopped off and the forward fuselage shortened..... -- Filip De Vos Pierce Brosnan is OK as Bond nr.006 FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:56 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Dumb Douglas: nee - DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics RD Rick wrote: > Among Monumental Dumb Decisions, that ranks high. They could still be > building DC-8s, with a modern cockpit and new autopilot. UPS is so > taken with the DC-8 they spent big bucks to do just that. It is > unprecedented for a new autopilot to be certified in an existing jet > transport airframe, but UPS did it. > rd I agree that it may have been dumb, but the DC-10 was fairly successful itself. In the age of the widebody airplane (late 60s and early 70s), Douglas would have gone down the tubes for sure if they had steadfastly clung to the narrowbody line. The USAF bought a substantial number of KC-10s, which they wouldn't have if the DC-8 had still been coming down the line at Long Beach. We might now have KC-747s in service with the USAF.... Hindsight is always 20/20. Who could have guessed 25 years ago that the DC-8 would be the freighter of choice in an overnight package market that barely existed back then? Jennings Heilig From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:57 From: Daniel Mecco Subject: Re: Dumb Douglas: nee - DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Compubell Reply-To: danmar@compubell.com The 707 was a much better aircraft, more versatile, and the U.S. military contracts with Boeing IE: KC/RC/EC/135 --- AWACS & COBRA BALL kept Boeing going back to the drawing board for many years to improve a great product .Still today with the KC-135 the upgrade with the CFM-56, engine the 707 airframe is still being improved and updated with the latest technology From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:57 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Dumb Douglas: nee - DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories RD Rick wrote: > > In rparpatt@uniserve.com > (Thundercraft) writes: > > > >Why did the 707 out-sell and out-last the DC-8??? > > Douglas killed the DC-8 to launch the DC-10. They broke up the > DC-8 tooling and converted the factory to DC-10. At the time, Flying > Tigers wanted to place an order for 25 DC8-6x to be delivered at any > > Among Monumental Dumb Decisions, that ranks high. They could still be > building DC-8s, with a modern cockpit and new autopilot. UPS is so > taken with the DC-8 they spent big bucks to do just that. All granted as being true... in HINDSIGHT. I have to wonder, though, if ANY airframe builder really saw the emerging importance of converted freighters in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Also, I have to wonder if UPS would be so "taken with the DC-8" if they had to pay for factory-new airframes, rather than upgrade cheaper second-hand aiframes. Maybe they would, since the upgrades they apply are definitely expensive. To my mind, though, a used airframe is perfect for the freight industry, where hours and especially cycles are accumulated much more slowly than in the daily grind of passenger service. Even if Douglas had kept the ability to produce the DC-8, could new DC-8's have competed with used ones for the freight market?? -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:57 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: BA 146 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In mohica@ix.netcom.com (William L. Thomas) writes: > >I used to see many of the STOL BA 146(?)flying throughout the US. The >last few years they seem to have disappeared. Where did they go and >what was the cause of their demise? You can't make money with them. Engine maintenance is the killer. rd First it was a tank engine; Upgraded to a helicopter engine; Upgraded to fanjet in BAe-146; By Lycoming, Textron-Lycoming, Allied-Signal. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:57 From: Alan Sanderson 408 447-3859 Subject: Re: BA 146 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HP Americas Integration Center Reply-To: Alan_Sanderson@hp.com William L. Thomas wrote: > > I used to see many of the STOL BA 146(?)flying throughout the US. The > last few years they seem to have disappeared. Where did they go and > what was the cause of their demise? Some of the carriers reported high maintenance expenses as the 146's aged. They were popular for the west coast shuttles, and continued to be used for certain airports where noise was a problem. They have mostly been replaced with MD-80's and 737's. Reno Air operates their MD-90's as the "Orange County Flyer" on the San Jose to John Wayne (SJC-SNA) shuttle. It's quieter than the MD-80 and they report 12% lower fuel consumption. It's considerably more comfortable and quiet inside than the 146. The flight time was about the same for the 146 as the bigger jets, as the 146 only climbed to 10,000 ft. where the others go to 30,000. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:57 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: BA 146 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics There are still lots of what used to be called BAe 146s (now called Avro RJ70/85/90) still around. ASA out of Atlanta has recently taken delivery of a whole bunch of RJ85s and is flying them around the southeast. I've seen them at LAX (TriStar, now defunct) and other places. There are also loads of them in Europe (Aer Lingus Commuter, Lufthansa, Jersey European, etc). Jennings Heilig From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:57 From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: Questions about Regional Jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concord World Travel On 19 Feb 97 02:46:23 , "P. Wezeman" wrote: > This last week, the Wall Street Journal had an article about regional >jets and the upcoming American Airlines strike. One interesting thing they >mentioned was what the airlines call "turboprop aversion factor". >According to airline people, passengers really dislike turboprop aircraft >and the mere action of replacing a turboprop with a jet on a given route >will increase passenger load by an average of twenty per cent. One thing that is certain is that the business traveller really prefers jets to turboprops. I'm not sure why, but the main reason could be that most business travellers are accustomed to jets and look with some suspicion on a turboprop which some would view as less advanced/noisier/less safe than jets. The leisure passenger, on the other hand, might fly only once a year and is less likely to be so fussy (being more concerned about price than anything else). -- Roger Chung-Wee Member, UK Chapter of the Caribbean Tourism Organisation. Publisher of Caribbean Aviation Newsletter. Tel: +44(0)181-342 8400 From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:57 From: Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Questions about Regional Jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca P. Wezeman wrote: > The article also said that the new Canadian regional jet has "ample > legroom". Do they mean ample legroom in comparison to a typical small > turboprop airliner or in comparison to a jetliner? The amount of legroom is decided by the airline. However, one could contend that if you replace a 30 seater turbo-prop with a regional jet only to replace the propellers with a jet engine, then you can put in only 30 seats inside a cabin capable of holding 50 seats, hence greater legroom. In practice, most airlines will configure the interior to fit as many people as is acceptable. Personally, the inside of a CRJ is not all that different from that of a DASH-8 or ATR airplane from what my memory cells tell me. But compared to a Shorts-360 or a Saab 340, there is a big difference. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:57 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Sexy airliners (was: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s?) References: : Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Thundercraft (rparpatt@uniserve.com) wrote: : Even though I am a dedicated Boeing fan, I will concede the point : that the best looking jetliner ever built was the streched 8. It : is the only plane made in the last 40 years that one can : say had any sex appeal. (The previous winner was the super connie). One word: Concorde. -- Filip De Vos Pierce Brosnan is OK as Bond nr.006 FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:57 From: dceightray@airmail.net (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: DC-8-61/63 window question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA On 21 Feb 97 01:10:41 , "Hans Jakobsson" wrote: >I have seen that the two last cabin windows on each side on some stretched >DC-8 (ex-Eastern among others) are closer together. Why is this (the same >applies to the Lockheed Electra which has three windows very close to each >other in the tail section)? > >Second question; does all Airborne Express/Burlington/Emery etc DC-8-63 >freighters have their windows plugged, or are the inside walls covered with >plastic like some 747F's? I can't answer the question regarding the windows on the passenger ac, as I never flew the ac in the pass. configuration and never paid much attention to the windows of the cargo 8's I fly now. The inside of the cargo compartment (which is the old passenger compt,) is covered with a fire resistant fiberglass lining called a "Gill Liner" (I think that is the brand name) The liner also covers up the wiring, prevents boxes from puncturing the skin (in theory only) and prevents the windows from being busted. I think the windows are still installed on most cargo ac, however I'm not sure. I'll pay a little more attention the next trip I fly. Ray Clawson WARNING: The return email address field has been altered to foil bulk email spammers. If you reply to this message please change the "eight" to "8" in the return address or it'll bounce. Not sure if this works or not, but it makes me feel better. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:58 From: John van Veen Subject: Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Something that has not mentioned is the price of a previously owned airframe. I recall seeing adds offering DC-8's for about $1,000,000US sometime ago. Such a deal at twice the price. John From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:58 From: Tom Gibson Subject: DC-7C Transatlantic Flight Questions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: San Diego State University I realize that this is not in the area of modern commercial aviation, but I'm hoping that someone will be able to remember ballpark numbers for a typical DC-7C transatlantic flight (say, New York to London (BOAC had them, and Pan Am too), or perhaps someone can dig out an old manual. First, I'd just like a subjective opinion of what it was like to fly the DC-7C. Was it a joy to fly, or a real bear? I know, for example, that many pilots didn't like to fly the Viscount, because of it's quite slow roll rate. Did the '7C have any similar quirks? Any good DC-7 or DC-7C stories? I also need to plot a virtual flight in a DC-7C, and need the following information (or a location for the info): (thanks in advance) At max weight of 143,000 lbs, how long was the takeoff roll? Was this a typical weight on T/A flights, or what was more typical? What was the climb rate, and at what engine settings? (throttle/RPM, mixture, and prop controls are what I can control). Did these change with altitude? What was the typical cruising altitude for the DC-7C, and what was the service ceiling? What were the typical cruise settings (RPM, mixture, prop controls, etc.). What was the typical fuel consumption at cruise (and at different stages of the flight, if known) What was the maximum landing weight? I really appreciate any help that anyone can give me. I'm also going to be plotting flights in the future for the L1049G (transcontinental non-stop) and for the DC-6B (say, from LAX to ORD (MID back then, I guess!)), so I'd love similar info about those planes/flights as well. Thanks again. -- Tom Gibson Classic Airliner Page: http://members.aol.com/TGFltsim/ (Fltsim) AlcoHauler Locomotive Page: http://members.aol.com/AlcoHauler/home/alcohaul.html Drop by! ___o_o_(")_o_o___ From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:58 From: Tom Gibson Subject: Props vs Fuselage Windows Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: San Diego State University I've noticed that all of the old prop airliners (from the DC-4 through at least the Electra) have no passenger windows exactly even with the geometrical plane of the props. Was this a CAA requirement for certification? I assume it was to avoid passenger injury if a prop let go; is this correct? Is it still a requirement, or is there a reliability threshold that now needs to be met before this requirement is waived? Thanks. -- Tom Gibson Classic Airliner Page: http://members.aol.com/TGFltsim/ AlcoHauler Locomotive Page: http://members.aol.com/AlcoHauler/home/alcohaul.html Drop by! ___o_o_(")_o_o___ From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:58 From: craig@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch) Subject: Re: Old DC-10 attitude problem... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CW&A Pte. Ltd., Singapore Eric Young wrote: >In the original DC-10's, was there something wrong with their flying >attitude? I heard the backs had to be fitted as piano bars as >passengers in the last few rows became sick on flights. Thank you. Would not the attitude of the craft in the last few rows be the same as that in the front? Or was it hinged somewhere? Cheers, Craig From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:58 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Old DC-10 attitude problem... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , rparpatt@uniserve.com (Thundercraft) wrote: > In article , brock@dircon.co.uk says... > > > >In the original DC-10's, was there something wrong with their flying > >attitude? I heard the backs had to be fitted as piano bars as > >passengers in the last few rows became sick on flights. Thank you. DC-10s fly with a pronounced nose-up attitude that I have been told is the result of a miscalculation. It was corrected somewhat in the MD-11, although to me the MD-11 still flys uphill. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:58 From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Old DC-10 attitude problem... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA On 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 , rparpatt@uniserve.com (Thundercraft) said: T> In article , brock@dircon.co.uk says... > >In the original DC-10's, was there something wrong with their flying >attitude? I heard the backs had to be fitted as piano bars as >passengers in the last few rows became sick on flights. Thank you. T> I believe that was for marketing considerations. I believe that T> United also originally fitted the 747's with bars in the back when T> they first put them into service. Canadian Airlines stuffed (and T> still do) every seat that they could (keeping with their seat/pitch T> policies). The DC-10 bars were at the back of First Class, not the back of the plane, and they were a response to the piano bars in the upstairs portion of the 747s. Yes, when 747s first came out there were no revenue seats on the upper deck. Folks from First Class could wander up there, relax on the couches, play cards at the tables, drink, and listen to piano music. I don't think Business Class had been invented yet, either. Nor had frequent flier programs and upgrades. The people up in the front of the plane were paying a lot to be there. On the other hand, it was easier to get comped into First Class then. Since my husband is in a wheelchair, we used to get comped quite often. Not anymore, though, as all the empty seats are taken by frequently-flying upgraders. Those were the days! Ice cream sundae bars on United DC-10s in First Class, too, as I recall. The 747 does have an unpleasant ride in the very back if the ride smoothing is turned off, but it's pretty nice otherwise. We went around the world (Pan Am flt 1) in 1979 or so, sitting in the next-to-last row in the plane. Even with the turbulence in the tropics, the ride was quite comfortable. The body bending modes were pretty easy to see; looking up the aisle it was possible to see the fuselage flexing. -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html For personal messages, please use shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:58 From: Jan-Erik Andelin Subject: Scrapped MD80's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland Have any MD80's already been scrapped for the simple reason of age ? Personal cc of your follow-up appreciated. Thanks a lot. -- erkki * * * MD80 International Home Page * * * http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/md80.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- Jan-Erik Andelin * phone +358-19-584 622 Agatan 63 * e-mail andelin@clinet.fi 06100 Borga, Finland * WWW http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/ From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:58 From: Jan-Erik Andelin Subject: MD80 and ETOPS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland Have any airlines obtained ETOPS for their MD80's ? SAS ? Alaska ? BWIA ? Personal cc of your follow-up appreciated. Thank you ! -- erkki * * * MD80 International Home Page * * * http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/md80.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- Jan-Erik Andelin * phone +358-19-584 622 Agatan 63 * e-mail andelin@clinet.fi 06100 Borga, Finland * WWW http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/ From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:59 From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: teeny vertical fins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA On 19 Feb 97 02:46:22 , miloro@cric.com (Scott Miloro) said: S> Speaking to the cases S> of B747-200 and 757, I have only seen the dorsal blade antennae - I S> will have a look at pics to see for myself (too lazy to go out to S> Logan.) Any guess as to possible advantages/disadvantages to the S> ventral placement of blade antennae? I think that on smaller a/c S> designers might worry about some lummox tweaking one, but who S> knows. It's possible that either the dorsal or ventral antennae might be blocked by the maneuvering of the plane. Turning away from the receiver means that the fuselage and, possibly, the wing will blank the signal, for example. Having them in each location ensures continued contact. Having two in different locations reduces interference and ensures redundancy, too. We install radio and TM antennae, both blade type, both dorsally and ventrally on our aircraft and radiate from both. Radar beacons, which have tiny little button antennae, get mounted ventrally, quite far forward, where the wing won't blank them. (We use tracking radar, not scanning radar like ATC does.) -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html For personal messages, please use shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:59 From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA NASA Johnson Space Center acquired 747-100s to be Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA). The first SCA, 905, acquired in the mid-70s, was purchased from American Airlines. The reason that we all heard for AA's willingness to sell was that the plane was sufficiently more expensive than subsequent models that AA was disposing of all of their -100s. The second SCA, 911, was acquired a few years ago. Although I don't remember the source (an airline is all I remember), the expense issue was again bruited about as the reason NASA got it for such a reasonable cost. In both cases, the aircraft were perfectly fine mechanically and no where near the end of their structural lives. They were, however, near the end of their economic lives as airliners. Economy or efficiency is the most important factor in an airline's decision to operate an airplane. In an industry where the change from glass to plastic bottles for the liquor singles can make a substantial difference in operating costs, airplanes that are less efficient to operate than others will be retired, no matter what the condition of their airframes, etc. However, the FAA does recognize that some airplanes, particularly those operated in hostile environments (i.e. salt and humidity in Hawaii) are more prone to certain problems such as corrosion. Flying a lot of short legs increases the number of cycles on the pressure vessel, making fatigue failures more likely. And so on. As a result, there has been a lot of study of "elderly" and otherwise affected aircraft and the corresponding maintainence problems, so that such aircraft require more and different inspections than do brand new aircraft. The military does retire aircraft based on airframe cycles or flight time, but only in special cases. For example, the buffet of the F-18 verticals means that the empennage has only a limited lifespan and once that lifespan is used up, the planes go to Davis-Monthan. NASA is equally cautious in many cases. We follow the same schedule the Navy does for our F-18s, for example. The X-29 vertical had a limited lifespan due to buffet and we retired the aircraft when we got to that limit. In fact, we discovered that inspection of the vertical was likely to reduce the lifespan enough that we stopped inspecting and went to using only flight time, with a _big_ safety factor built in. -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html For personal messages, please use shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:59 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >NASA Johnson Space Center acquired 747-100s to be Shuttle Carrier >Aircraft (SCA). The first SCA, 905, acquired in the mid-70s, was >purchased from American Airlines ... The second SCA, 911, was >acquired a few years ago. Although I don't remember the source >(an airline is all I remember) ... While 905 is a -100 (a 747-123, to be precise), 911 is a 747SR-46, the short-range, high-cycle version for the Japanese domestic market. It was acquired from "Boeing Equipment Holding Company" in October, 1988, six months after they had purchased it from Japan Air Lines, the original owner. (Sounds like it had been a trade-in.) >In both cases, the aircraft were perfectly fine mechanically and no >where near the end of their structural lives. They were, however, >near the end of their economic lives as airliners. 905 was nowhere near the end of its economic life as an airliner. It was the 8th (of 16) 747-123s in American's fleet, and was sold to NASA in 1974, before it had even reached its 4th birthday. The five 747-123s which immediately preceded it are still in airline service today, flying for United, and the oldest of those is scheduled to be the next-to-last 747-100 in United's fleet, with a planned retirement date of February, 2000. That's over 26 years of economic life past when NASA acquired 905. Another 747-123 is still flying passengers for Virgin Atlantic, and seven fly freight for UPS. Only two are out of service; they were last operated by Pan Am and have been stored since 1991. -- 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 Mar 1 02:44:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:59 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) writes: > The problem with Narita isn't that it is being overused as a hub >when there should be direct flights, it's that an airport with a single >runway is being used for virtually all international traffic out of one >of the world's largest cities, which happens to be the principal city >of the world's second largest economy. Narita is woefully inadequate >for serving Tokyo, even if you discount onward traffic. There is of >course a fair argument that the solution is to build more airport >capacity, not larger aircraft, and this is of course true. However, >in Japan this is politically very difficult. While it remains politically >difficult, there is a market for a larger aircraft. There are only a few >airports worldwide for which this sort of argument applies, so the market >for such an aircraft at present is only a niche market. However, it is a >real one. Of course, if these super-jumbo's require more flight separation, longer/wider runways, longer turnaround times and more gate space... they may not serve to reduce congestion at Nartia at all. Furthermore, the 3XX will probably only hold 20% more passengers than a 747-400... which implies a relatively minor impact on congestion even if all of the 747 switched to the new super-jumbo's and even without considering the moderating factors mentioned above. Compare that to the effect on congestion if all of the smaller planes switched to 747's? I guess what I am saying is that I don't buy the "reducing congestion" argument for the next generation super-jumbo. If there were intense congestion problems we would be seeing pressure to replace the smaller planes with bigger ones... but the current trend in most markets is the opposite. We could reduce the flight cycles in most markets by 100% even with currently avail. planes, but we are not doing it. The only real long term pressure for a new super-jumbo is lower seat/mile costs over current jumbo's. Given the development costs and current small market for these planes, I don't see them having a low seat/mile cost for some time (even assuming substantial improvments in fuel burn). BTW, does anyone think that Boeing could counter an Airbus 600 passenger plane without introducing a new plane themselves? How low do you think they could go on the price of a 747-400 and still be profitable? Do you think Airbus's new plane could compete on a seat/mile basis with a rock-bottom priced 747-400? Sincerely, Terry Schell From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:59 From: "Alvin W. Law" Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, California Reply-To: alaw@us.oracle.com [ Message to moderators: I'm cross-posting to m.t.a-i since I think readers there are also interested in this topic ] Karl Swartz wrote: > > >Fridays 16th, Le Monde had a very interesting article on the battle > >between Boeing and Airbus for the >500 class. > ... > >Boeing is now offering a brand new aircraft for 2006 to avoid > >airlines choosing the Airbus product. It is also reported that Boeing > >is threatening it's sub-contractors if they should participate in the > >A3XX project. > > Sounds more like propaganda than educated reporting. Boeing people > seem to know nothing about offering a brand new aircraft. Quite the > contrary, Boeing seems to be focusing its efforts on derivatives of > its large twins, the 767 and 777. See the current (February 17, 1997) > Aviation Week, p. 60, for an article on the subject including several > quotes from Michael B. Bair, Boeing's VP for Product Strategy and > Development. > > One project, according to Bair, is a 777-200X with 720,000 lbs MGTOW, > allowing a range of 8,500-9,000 nm. (From Chicago, Perth is about the > only interesting city outside that range. New York to Singapore or > Auckland are possible, with Sydney being within reach if the 9,000 nm > range is achieved. London to Perth is even possible, though the more > commercially interesting eastern cities of Australia, and New Zealand, > are still out of reach.) > > The article notes a Boeing market analysis that determined that most > 747s have been purchased for range, not capacity. Here's how they > broke down the choices: > > 60% range > 30% capacity > 10% Japanese domestic (obviously capacity, albeit specialized) > > Given the dramatic shift in the trans-Atlantic market from large > planes flying between major hubs to smaller planes linking far more > city pairs, overflying the hubs, this shouldn't be too surprising. > With more liberal aviation agreements in the Asia/Pacific countries > and planes with sufficient range, the same thing is inevitable in the > Pacific. Isn't the -500X the longer range derivative (similar capacity to -400) while the -600X the larger capacity derivative (similar range)? The 777 derivative mentioned above will have a similar range compared to the -500X but with much reduced capacity. Assuming that the cost of developing derivatives are roughly the same (order of magnitude). I have no idea about the projected operating cost of the -500X compared to the 777 derivative, but if Boeing is willing to suspend a program which is on the verge of launching (with enough demand), and instead opted for more time studying a reduced capacity option, it seems Boeing is sending a message that improved range is what the market needs. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:59 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr >You totally missed the point. All the narrow-bodies planes have a very >broad customer base, many have 100 plus customers. The B767 and >A300/310 have a fairly broad customer base, too. ... >>>Even before launching the >>>A3XX, Airbus basically has at least three customers in its basket, namely, >>>Air France, Lufthansa, and Korean Air (Korea is likely to be the first >>>Asian A3XX partner). QNd why not Singapore, Cathay, Chinese airlines, Japanese airlines, British airways, Thai, MAS, ANZ, Quantas and more for combi configuration. And FEDEX, UPS, DHL for freighter one From kls Sat Mar 1 02:44:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:59 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>>>Even before launching the >>>>A3XX, Airbus basically has at least three customers in its basket, namely, >>>>Air France, Lufthansa, and Korean Air (Korea is likely to be the first >>>>Asian A3XX partner). >QNd why not Singapore, Cathay, Chinese airlines, Japanese airlines, >British airways, Thai, MAS, ANZ, Quantas and more for combi >configuration. Because none of those airlines are controlled by governments which also control (or have substantial influence over) primary partners in the A3XX. He didn't say that those three were the *only* three customers, just that they were shoe-ins, whether the need the A3XX or not. However, some in your list don't clearly have a need for the A3XX. Qantas and Air New Zealand strike me as prime examples of Boeing's finding that most 747 customers bought the plane for its range, not capacity. I don't have hard data to back that up, but I'm not aware of any markets where either has a need for a dramatic increase in capacity. Cathay wants large planes today, since their home airport, Kai Tak, is so constrained, but that problem will go away next year with the opening of Chek Lap Kok. I'm not sure Cathay will still have a huge need for huge planes at that point, especially with the range to overfly Japan. Perhaps that's why Cathay has been busily buying 777s and A340s. (With A330s for shorter markets.) >And FEDEX, UPS, DHL for freighter one FedEx doesn't even like 747s, and DHL has nothing bigger than a DC-8. The A3XX's double deck arrangement isn't well suited for freighters, either. Why in the world would you think those carriers would be likely A3XX customers?! -- 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 Mar 1 02:44:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:59 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) Subject: Re: A330-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr TUKANO wrote: >Marc SCHAEFFER wrote: >Air Inter is not able to fill the A330s on Toulouse-Orly e.g. anymore. >Their new strategy consists of putting a flight every half an hour, every hour except high demand time >BTW, Do you know the exact month when Sabena will get the A 330? next year From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:00 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) Subject: Re: A330-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr probbe@micronet.fr (Patrick Robbe) wrote: >On 13 Feb 97 01:37:41 , "Marc SCHAEFFER" wrote: > >>- Air Inter had 15 A330-300 on order, it looks like they have canceled >> the order. >>[...] >>- Who can tell me why Air Inter gets rid of the A330-300 >> (no more needed, poor performance, ???) > >It seems that for political & strategic reasons, Air France >headquarters decided that Air Inter (now known as Air France Europe, >at least until April 1st...) would recentrate its activities on the >national shuttles rather than on the european flights, so they decided >that the A330 were not needed any more, and I've read somewhere that >they have ordered A319 and A321 in place of the A330. Not polical reason. Air Inter crew is paid twice as BAW one. AFR will integrate ITF next april in one airline with AFR salary. So; ITF assumes a reduce network with shuttle system on TOULOUSE MARSEILLE NICE. A321 have been ordered before A330. Now, ITF operates all its 9 A319 oredered. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:00 From: Jan Willem de Wijn Subject: 747-100 noise restrictions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PaiR Communicatie Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is planning to make both an operational and a financial distinction between aircraft movements with Boeing 747-100's and other versions of the Jumbo. Aircraft noise appears to be the governing factor behind this. 747-100's will be banned from the night and will pay heavy surcharges during the day. Anyone know of other airports where this distinctions is made ? Also Tupolev 154M and Ilyushin 76 aircraft are included in the new noise Schiphol restrictions. These restrictions are based on ICAO Chapter 2 of Annex 16. It seems that both Russian aircraft are -despite their noisy performance- regarded as Chapter 3. Anyone know of other airports where Tu154 and IL76 are treated as Chapter 2-aircraft ? Thanks, Jan Willem From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:00 From: Dave Chaloux Subject: Manufactures of FMS units in Comercial Aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation Does anyone happen to know who manufactures the FMS units in various Commercial Aircraft? I would also be interested in a list of manufactures for GA. Finally, does anybody know of any good resources concerning FMS systems? TIA. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,alt.books.tom-clancy Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:00 From: rbrown@stevens-tech.edu (Richard Brown) Subject: 737 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stevens Institute of Technology I am reading DEBT OF HONOR by Tom Clancy and was wondering about something. At the start of chapter 39, it explains how Japanese consulates in Seattle, San Fran, New York, and Honolulu were vacated and the Japanese were flown to Vancouver. The people from Honolulu boarded a United 737 for a five hour trip to BC. How plausible would it be for the 737 to make this hop? From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,alt.books.tom-clancy Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:00 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 737 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The people from Honolulu boarded a United 737 for a five hour trip >to BC. How plausible would it be for the 737 to make this hop? United has several models of 737, of which the 737-500 has the longest range. According to Boeing, Maximum takeoff weights of the 737-500 range from 115,500 pounds (52,390 kg) for the basic offering up to 133,500 pounds (60,550 kg) for the high-gross-weight version. When equipped with auxiliary fuel tanks, the latter model will be capable of carrying 108 passengers on nonstop flights up to 3,190 statute miles (5,140 km). HNL-YVR is 2,705 statute miles, so technically it's possible. However, United's 737-500s are intermediate weight versions (122,500 lbs MGTOW) and do not, to my knowledge, have auxiliary fuel tanks. Beyond that, United's 737s have ETOPS rating at all, and I've never heard of any 737 having the 180-minute ETOPS rating required to fly from Hawaii to North America on anything other than a ferry move. I'd say the scenario in the book is implausible at best. -- 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 Mar 1 02:45:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:00 From: jokim@athena.mit.edu (John H Kim) Subject: Splashproof? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology This came up in a discussion I was having with a friend. How resistant are the electronics in a typical airliner cockpit to spilled drinks? What sorts of procedural and deesign safeguards are there? TIA -- -- John H. Kim "I stop for red traffic lights" -- bumper sticker jokim@mit.edu commissioned by the City of Boston as part of a MIT Sea Grant campaign to shed its reputation for bad drivers. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:00 From: " Marc SCHAEFFER" Subject: Re: A3XX as cargo plane Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Up to now I haven't seen any picture or layout of the A3XX as a cargo plane. On all passanger A3XX layout the cockpit is located between deck 1 and deck 2, not an ideal situation to load cargo via the front. If the A3XX cockpit stays at deck 1.5 for both the cargo and passenger versions, there will be one or several cargodoors on the side. Or Airbus will chose two different cockpit layout for cargo and passenger version (unlikely) : Two possibilities : -They do like on the A300 -> Beluga and move the cockpit to the cargo deck. -They move the cockpit of the cargo version to the top (let's call it deck 2.5), just like on the good old 747. Since the A3XX is (will be) a new design, they should design it in such a way that one cockpit fits all applications. Just curious ... Marc SCHAEFFER, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:01 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: Re: Airbus A320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Larry Stone wrote >Medium??? Never heard the term used to describe airplanes. In the U.S, >there's small (41,000 lbs. or less), large (over 41,000 up to 255,000 >lbs.), and heavy (over 255,000 lbs). Reference: Airman's Information >Manual Pilot/Controller Glossary. I add Canadian ATC Manual of Operations uses Heavy, Medium, Light, and reminds Canadian controllers that the US uses small, large, heavy Regards Alex From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:01 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Airbus 320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "Rui Mayer" wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > I have recently noticed that whenever I fly on A320's I develop serious > synus crises, which cause me severe head and nose pain. Assuming that you are not a member of one of the governments who make up the Airbus consortium, which could be a possible cause of your headaches, it may be due to the operating practices of the airline in question rather than the fault of the airplane itself. I do not know enough about heating, cooling, and pressurization systems to give you a list of possible technical causes, but all these systems are governed either by the components installed (filters, etc.) or operation by the flight crew. I have flown on A320s on a few occasions and have found their cabin environments to be no different than those of other airplanes. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:01 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A340-600X ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist (falke@pweh.com) wrote: > > high end of the B777 market. Ironically, GE has yet to sign up a > > customer to use the GE90 for the B777-300. I wonder if GE will now make > > a push for the GE90-100B since the A340-600X is put on hold. > > Interesting question. I'm hearing rumors they're trying to offer a > clipped fan GE90 for the 767-400X. I seriously doubt it. First, I think the clipped fan GE90 would be seriously overweight. Furthermore, GE would have to go through ETOPS testings again. With the CF6-80C2 having the least IFSDs, I think it would be stupid for GE to abandon the -80C2. > I wonder also, how a heavy A330 with GP7000's might sell. That will be interesting. If that does happen and Airbus decides to build the A340-600X, too, then the A330/340 family will concurrently be offered with four different classes of engines (30-35K, 55-60K, 65-70K, and 76-80K) from five different vendors (GE, P&W, R-R, CFMI, and GE/P&W Alliance) with seven different base models (CFM56, CF6-80E1, PW4000, Trent 700, GP7000, Trent 900, and the newly proposed A340 engine from GE). This would have to be a record. ;-) > Nifty web site you've made there, btw :-) Thanks. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:01 From: matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) Subject: Re: A340 development References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. >The current week's Aviation Week and Space Technology reports a 777-200IGW+ is in the works, and that will push the 777-200 range well past the 7000nm mark. I think is the kind of news Airbus would rather not be hearing. I've recently re-read the Avweek article, and this somewhat understates the circumstances. Apparently the IGW+ version isn't in the works, Air France actually ordered it. A 'thumbnail' calculation on range for the 777-200IGW+ puts the range at about 7900nm > In addition, according to Avweek, the first 777-200IGW was deliverd on 7 February to British Airways, and went into service for British Airways on 9 February, 2 more were apparently slated for delivery this month to BA. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:01 From: usenet@cryogen.com (Eric) Subject: Re: A340 development References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cryogen Reply-To: usenet@cryogen.com On 19 Feb 97 02:46:23 , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: >P.S. China Eastern has recently announced its Summer 97 schedule. The > airline will operate all its LAX services with the MD-11 instead > of the A340. Earlier, I have heard the airline was not happy with > the long-range performance of the A340. The new schedule seems to > confirm the unsubstantiated rumor. >From what I heard, the reason for an all MD-11 service to LAX is to offer an all A340 service to Europe where they enjoy a higher yield. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:01 From: mike meddings Subject: 747-400 Vmca vrs Vmcg Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Achilles Internet Ltd. Does anyone know which is higher Vmcg or Vmca on a 747-400 and why? At first glance it would seem that Vmca would have to be yet the regulations allow for the requirment that V1 >= Vmcg while Vr > 1.05Vmca one is also allowed to have V1=Vr. If anyone can point me in the right direction on this (no pun intended) an e-mail to "meddings@achilles.net" would be appreciated. From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:01 From: ei7gm@iol.ie (Paul Kearney) Subject: Re: 777 Tail wag fix References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ireland On-Line Reply-To: ei7gm@iol.ie roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) wrote: : On 21 Jan 97 01:32:26 , jetwayne@vonl.com wrote: : >Does anyone know what Boeing ever did to fix the tail wag problem with : >the 777? : A modal suppression, or high-rate damper system, similar to that : fitted to the 757, 767 and 747, was fitted from September to correct : yaw oscillation which occurred after the 777 encountered turbulence. What ! With alllll those computers on board , not one of them could command enough to stop tail-wag ? Come back 737-200 , all is forgiven :-) From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:01 From: ei7gm@iol.ie (Paul Kearney) Subject: Re: 737 with wire ant. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ireland On-Line Reply-To: ei7gm@iol.ie : At 04:36 AM 1/3/97, you wrote: : >I saw a 737-200 in Cancun earlier today with an antennae wire running from : >the middle of the vertical stabiliser to the top of the fuselage. I don't : >recall seeing this type of installation on other 737s. I believe that it The older variety of 737200 has the capability for 2 HF installations. Both are wire Antennae roughly 66feet long of copper-clad stainless-steel wire covered with a brown-coloured-plastic(normally). The HF Antenna Tuner and Ligthening Arrestor are located in the fuselage roof where the antennae feed-through-mast are located., The other end at the tail fin has a "weak-link" fitting so that if the wire breaks for whatever reasons , then wire is expected to snap and the weak-link will also give way and the wire should "fall away" instead of wrapping itself around the tail fin. The power is the same as normal 100-125 watts RF 3 phase 115vac feed. In the old days when the 200 was King...(oh oh ,, I've said it now !! ) Airlines that flew over wide stretches of water would have afew of these aircraft in their fleet. Regards ALL From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:01 From: TUKANO Subject: Re: Airbus 3XX References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany al M. wrote: > > Hello Everyone: > I read in Flying magazine that this new bird is going to carry about 600 > pax and I was wondering if the 90 second rule of Evacuation is going to > affect it. Can you imagine!!!... Well, it will be possible to evacuate the A3XX Dino in 90 seconds, but by using also the exits in the upper deck (like on the 747-300 & -400). But it is certain that in such a case, the passengers evacuating via the upperdck exits will suffer much more injuries, so the target is to evacuate whenever posible through the main deck exits. So long, Tukano. -- mailto:immoeadj@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:02 From: Derek Clarke Subject: Re: Nose loading (was: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F) References: <32B45EE6.6ABC@po.cwru.edu> <330d3265.302073@news.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GEC-Marconi Inflight Systems Michael Butler wrote: >J. Heilig wrote: >> Who can forget the all-stainless steel Bud Aircraft Conestoga? >With a first flight in October 1943 it beats the C82 and Bristol 170. >This must make it the first of the powered high cockpit nose door >aircraft. The Messerscmitt 323 (Gigant) flew in 1942 according to http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/ger/ME323GIG.html And six engines certainly made it powered! From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:02 From: D Snow Subject: B757 as /H (was: Airbus A320) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Correct, the B757 is indeed NOT considered a heavy aircraft, although it should be. If one looks at the weight divisions, 255,000 is the highest max takeoff weight I have seen for any B757s, those at American Trans Air. However, Even if the weight division were made at, say, 240,000 lbs, some B757s would be included, and some B757s would NOT be included. ATAs would be, but Northwest B757s max out at 227,500. DLs also max out somewhere in that weight range as well. I think UAs domestic B757s max out in that range as well, but the ETOPS B757s are a higher gross weight version. With B757s at MDW, the B757 is THE most overpowered subsonic airliner around. According to the B757 FAA Airplane flight manual, a B757 with PW2037 engines has a single-engine service at max gross (ATA version) of FL250. Most B757s I have been on took only 20 seconds or so in the takeoff run. I was on a light B757 from YYZ to DTW a few years back on NW, we weighed around 175,000 lbs, it was cold, snowy, and our takeoff run was only 14 seconds long! When we arrived at DTW so I could get the paperwork from the crew (I was studying for the dispatchers written) I asked the captain about this, and he said it wouldve been 10 seconds for the takeoff run if he had used max thrust, as opposed to the TO-2, the highest derate possible. Without doing an airport analysis for the B757 at MDW, since I Do not have obstacle charts for MDW, a B757 is a very safe operation at MDW indeed. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie (Currently INOP) From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:02 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: B757 as /H (was: Airbus A320) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Even if the weight division were made at, say, 240,000 lbs, some B757s >would be included, and some B757s would NOT be included. Not true. An aircraft is considered a heavy if its *type* is rated for a MGTOW of at least 300,000 lbs, even if the particular aircraft in question has a lower MGTOW. >Northwest B757s max out at 227,500. DLs also max out somewhere in >that weight range as well. The info I have says Northwest's are all an even 220,000 lbs MGTOW, while Delta's are 240,000 lbs. >I think UAs domestic B757s max out in that range as well, but the >ETOPS B757s are a higher gross weight version. United's are all 230,000 lbs, even the ten ETOPS examples. Perhaps you were thinking of American? All of AA's 757s were delivered with a 240,000 lbs MGTOW, but the six ETOPS versions were later upgraded to 250,000 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 Mar 1 02:45:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:02 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Blended-body snag? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 19 Feb 1997, Ostreger wrote: > I'm a FW nut and want BBAs to work; I just can't see how they beat the > pressurisation problem. Estimates of 10,000 pounds weight penalty don't > approach mine - the catch is distortion, and consequent fatigue. > The B-35 and B-49 had tiny cabins where this didn't apply. > The pressure cabins of aircraft are structurally efficient when they every part is in pure tension, and no part is subjected to bending stress. Clearly, a sphere and a cylinder are good shapes for this. After all, the surface of a common balloon has no bending strength at all, and so it naturally assumes a spherical or cylindrical shape (depending on what kind of balloon) when inflated. Suppose that you took an inflated spherical balloon and attached a string to its inner surface at two points on opposite sides of the balloon. If you then gradually shortened the string, you would pull the sides of the balloon together, making the sides pucker in. It would no longer be spherical, but it would still be loaded in pure tension. The string that you added and that is holding the sides together is no more capable of resisting a bending load than the balloon's rubber surface is. If you added more strings parallel to the first and pulled them tight, the balloon would gradually assume the appearance of a quilted chair cushion. It would still be a structurally efficient shape. You could also take a cylindrical balloon and put in a closely set row of strings down the middle. If you then shortened all the strings, the balloon would be pulled into a figure 8 cross section. The strings would form an internal partition loaded in pure tension. This is also an efficient shape. The Boing Stratocruiser airliner had a fuselage of this configuration, commonly called "double bubble", with the tension link between the two lobes forming the floor of the upper passenger deck. You could also build a triple bubble pressure cabin with two internal partitions carrying the tension forces from one side to the other. If you had about a dozen partitions you would have a basically flat shape, looking much like a common air mattress, that would fit well into a blended-body airliner. The Goodyear company once built an inflatable airplane (called the Inflatoplane, what else) that could be rolled up and packed in a big duffel bag, and then inflated with a pump running off the engine. The wings were rubberized fabric with closely spaced internal ties holding them in a flat shape. The whole plane was a pressure vessel built entirely from flexible materials. This really worked; you can find photographs of it flying. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sat Mar 1 02:45:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 02:45:02 From: Joules Potter Subject: Re: Blended-body snag? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Typhoon In article , Paul Michaels writes >"P. Wezeman" wrote: snip >I'm thinking of how the airlines felt they had to blank the first >couple of windows at the front of a 747 (do they still do that?), this >would be much more likely to frit 'em up than just seeing the clouds >coming at you. Paul The front couple of rows of windows on the 747 are blanked for bird- strike protection only, Boeing figured that the ordinary perspex see through panes did not have the structural requirements needed to stop a bird hitching a free ride in the cabin. Riding out at the wing tip area would be a blast for the first 10 minutes, but it would play hell with the drinks and meal service.:-) Rgds Joules -- Joules Potter Licenced Aircraft Engineer From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:13 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Terry Schell wrote: > >I guess what I am saying is that I don't buy the "reducing congestion" >argument for the next generation super-jumbo. If there were intense >congestion problems we would be seeing pressure to replace the smaller >planes with bigger ones... but the current trend in most markets is >the opposite. In Europe and in the US, airlines are not using bigger planes to replace smaller ones. This is not true in East/Southeast Asia. Malaysia (MH) and Thai (TG) replaced some of their A300s with A330s. In fact, for MH, they dumped their whole A300 fleet after they have taken deliveries of the A330. That's at least 20-30% increase in capacity. Singapore will replace some of its A310s with the B777; and that's about 40-50% increase in capacity. I would say the majority of the A330 orders and some of the B777 orders made by East Asian airlines are for replacing smaller planes (e.g., Philippine, Korean, Cathay, etc.) From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:14 From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP In article , Terry Schell wrote: > >Of course, if these super-jumbo's require more flight separation, >longer/wider runways, longer turnaround times and more gate space... >they may not serve to reduce congestion at Nartia at all. >Furthermore, the 3XX will probably only hold 20% more passengers >than a 747-400... which implies a relatively minor impact on congestion >even if all of the 747 switched to the new super-jumbo's and even >without considering the moderating factors mentioned above. I can buy the flight separation argument, although I haven't seen figures suggesting that the A3XX will require more than the 747-400. (Can someone shed more light on this?). Turnaround times depend to some extent on the efficiency of your ground operations. More gate space is normally much more politically easy to build than more runway capacity. Ditto (although perhaps to a lesser extent than gate space). >Compare that >to the effect on congestion if all of the smaller planes switched to >747's? >I guess what I am saying is that I don't buy the "reducing congestion" >argument for the next generation super-jumbo. If there were intense >congestion problems we would be seeing pressure to replace the smaller >planes with bigger ones... but the current trend in most markets is >the opposite. We could reduce the flight cycles in most markets by >100% even with currently avail. planes, but we are not doing it. Again, this argument doesn't really hold at Narita. 747s are used for most movements there, and this is largely due to congestion. (Congestion is an important reason for 747s being used on Japanese domestic routes also). At the most capacity constrained airports elsewhere, there certainly is pressure to use larger aircraft. The average sized aircraft being used at Heathrow (especially by BA) has increased significantly in recent years. Plans for terminal five are based upon a very significant increase in the number of passengers without a significant increase in aircraft movements. (There is a way to go there before a super-jumbo will make a huge difference, but the trend is definitely the opposite to the 'smaller aircraft' trend where there is capacity to spare). I'm not disagreeing with you to a great extent. The number of airports at which you see this effect is very small, and the number at which it is sufficiently advanced that a super-jumbo would make a difference is even smaller. I don't believe that this factor provides a large enough market to build a super-jumbo at present. (In fact, even with other factors as well, I don't presently believe that there is a market sufficient to support such an aircraft). I am only arguing that it provides a market for some aircraft. 'Some' might not be very many. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk "`I need every aluminum can you can find! And duct tape!" From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:14 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Maybe Boeing was Right References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Robert Carpenter wrote: > > Flight International says that Airbus has withdrawn all of US Air's > 1998 and 1999 delivery positions because USAir has been unable to (1) > come up with the money, and (2) obtain wage concessions from staff. > So the hundreds of Airbuses won't be arriving soon at USAir. > > Maybe Boeing was right in taking a walk from sales to US Air. Or > maybe this is just more hardball for US Air in its staff wage > negotiations. Time may tell. Precisely as I predicted. I have no vested interest in either USAirways, Boeing or Airbus, but I just have this gut feeling that even if Airbus had agreed to build them the airplanes, USAirways won't be around long enough to take delivery of many, if any, of them. Jennings Heilig From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:14 From: Per Harwe Subject: Re: 747SP Flight Training References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ericsson Inc. Reply-To: per.harwe@exu.ericsson.com MacLure wrote: > > maclure@cvsrf1.arc.nasa.gov (MacLure) writes: > [--] > >I suspect that the systems were similar enough to the -100 > >model that some training could be done on -100 sims. The > >question of flight training would however be a different > >story. > [--] > Link-Miles built 1 B747SP sim back about 1980. It was located here > at SFO airport. When Pan Am went south the sim went to Miami. > Where it is now, I haven't a clue. United groups the B747-100/-200/-SP training together (see their Flight Center web page: http://www.ualfltctr.com/docs/747tc.html). /Per From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:14 From: D Snow Subject: Re: B757 as /H (was: Airbus A320) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 1 Mar 1997, Karl Swartz wrote: > >Even if the weight division were made at, say, 240,000 lbs, some B757s > >would be included, and some B757s would NOT be included. > > Not true. An aircraft is considered a heavy if its *type* is rated > for a MGTOW of at least 300,000 lbs, even if the particular aircraft > in question has a lower MGTOW. I stand corrected, you are correct. > >Northwest B757s max out at 227,500. DLs also max out somewhere in > >that weight range as well. I have a DQ display from WORLDFLIGHT, Northwest's flight operations system: DQ 5501 501US T/B757/R B757-200 PW2037 O/W PASS E/W: 1294 O/W 1294 MAX STR GROSS: RMP 2285 T/O 2275 LDG 1980 MAX STR Z FUEL WT 1840 MAX FUEL CAPACITY 754 TAXI B/O LBS/MIN 30 MIN DISP FUEL 100 MIN ALTN FUEL 31 HOLD FUEL PER HOUR 65 DOM CONTINGENCY 5 REFUEL OR CREW CHG 100 > The info I have says Northwest's are all an even 220,000 lbs MGTOW, > while Delta's are 240,000 lbs. This info is as of 4/95, and might have changed. -- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie (Currently INOP) From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:14 From: "Brian A. Reynolds" Subject: Re: Question: Vertical speed on landing? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Kim Hackett wrote: > > >Can somebody please tell me what is the vertical landing speed > >limit for a B737 or B757 at MaxLandWeight (prior to any structural > damage)? > > For certification to FAR Part 25, I think the landing gear must pass a > limit drop test at 10 ft/second at its maximum landing weight and > 6 ft/sec at the maximum takeoff weight. Reserve energy gear drop testing > is required at a higher sink rate, but I don't remember what it is. FAR 25.723(b) The landing gear may not fail in a test, demonstrating its reserve engergy absorption capacity, simulated a descent velocity of 12 fps at design landing weight, assuming airplane life not greater then the airplane weight acting during the landing impact. I didn't see any reference to max takeoff weight. From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:15 From: Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Airliner lights Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca It seems that on a clear day, on can see the lights from an incoming airliner on approach that is still quite far. I assume that those are not your everyday headlight you would put on your car. What sort of power (watts) do these beasts consume ? How long would they normally last before they are replaced ? Is there a special material/glass used to allow it to operate in extreme conditions and most importantly, fairly rapidly changing temperatures without cracking/failing ? Are they designed solely "to be seen" or do they also help pilots see what is out there ? From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:15 From: "Marc SCHAEFFER" Subject: Re: A300-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM J. Heilig wrote : >According to a friend who works (or I should say worked) for Air >Inter,they were simply too big for Air Inter's needs. They were >flying them from Paris to Marseille less than half full most of the >time. That's why they didn't take any more and are getting rid of >the ones they have. I wonder if cancelling the remaining orders was not more expensive than using the oversized plane, at least as long as buyers would have been found for all 15 planes. Or did Airbus negociate the planes for Air Inter (or should I say Air France Europe) ? By the way which type of plane replaces the A330-300 ? Marc SCHAEFFER, Luxembourg (marcmsc@hotmail.com) --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:15 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re[2]: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Meg Appleton wrote: >> I was curious if the C-130's and C-141's have any commercial utility. >> If someone gave them away, would they find productive use or would the >> operating costs be simply too high? >There are a lot of C130 in civil use, for freight or mixed PAX/ Freight >Combination. Especially in Africa, this aircraft is popular and used in >relief missions, and civil versions are named L100(reffering to Southern >Air Transport) > >Concerning the C141, this is a unique A/C only used by the USAF. There >is no civil application. The operation costs should be to high due to >the lack of maintenance and fuel costs, as well as for the required >noise regulations in some countries. there would also be a >certifivcation problem, because there is no civil-certified airplane. >(Maybe this would mean for the C130 that they have to copy with the >certification of the L100) I think it is not true that C-130s(L-382) are operating in civil use...the C-130 is a military aircraft which is on the Department of State embargo list and therefore is not eligible for exportation. Some civilian versions (L-100, etc) are in use but have mods which make them different from the military version. (removal of air drop rails, etc.). This aircraft has FAA civil certification. Some C-130s (military surplus?) have been made available for use in Department of Interior/Department of Agriculture programs (such as fire fighting) and these birds have been extensively modified for air drop of fire fighting chemicals...some of these are operated by civilian contractors...but are "public use" aircraft, which in the U.S.may meet slightly different requirements for airworthiness/certification standards/processes. Such aircraft were traded to retire the last of the operational (for fire fighting) B-17s several years ago. I think that there may have been a couple of short term exceptions to the above where aircraft were bailed for humanitarian use (famine relief)... and it may be possible that at some point or another a contractor which operates C-130 for the above purposes used such an aircraft for a purpose/mission other than that for which the aircraft was made available...if this occurred, that contractor may have violated the intent of the conditions under which the aircraft was provided...but does not mean that C-130s are in general civilian use. From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:15 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 13 Feb 1997, rhett wrote: > To my knowledge, the C-141 is not in civil use except for a couple that > NASA use. I seem to recall that Lockheed had some hopes of selling civilian Starlifters but that was many years ago and the plane is obsolete now. They were also hoping to sell C-5 Galaxies. There was some merit to the idea, since the similar Antonev An-124 is in civilian use for hauling outsize loads, but they have the advantage that the planes were paid for by the old Soviet Union, and would otherwise be sitting around doing nothing, what with the downsizing of the Russian military. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:15 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium rhett (rhett_l@onaustralia.com.au) wrote: : Lockheed were selling the C-130 as a civilian airfreighter in two : varients (a standard & stretch - the same stretch as in th UK ones) but : the didn't sell all that well. : To my knowledge, the C-141 is not in civil use except for a couple that : NASA use. (Seeing as the thread is 'and other military aircraft') On the other hand, the Ilyushin Il-72 _is in civilian use. I think most Antonov 'military' aircraft are in civilian use as well. -- Filip De Vos Pierce Brosnan is OK as Bond nr.006 FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:15 From: Roger Philp Subject: High Performance Computing Colloquium Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Wales UNIVERSITY OF WALES ------------------- C A L L F O R P A P E R S ----------------------------- COLLOQUIUM ON APPLICATIONS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING -------------------------------------------------------- Gregynog House, Newtown, Powys, SY16 3PW, WALES 7 - 9 April 1997 Scope of Colloquium: Authors are invited to present papers on recent advances and the usage of High Performance Computing (HPC) in a variety of fields in Wales, the Midlands and West of England, although contributors from further afield will be welcome. A wide variety of topics are envisaged from both Academia and Industry which may include for example: distributed computing, parallel computing, Geotechnics, structural engineering, finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, computational electrodynamics, galaxy formation, aerodynamics, solid state physics, etc. The purpose of the meeting is to highlight and promote the usage of High Performance Computing and networking in Industry and Higher education institutes. Speakers from vendors would be encouraged to give talks on HPC applications as opposed to specific hardware platforms, Talks will range for 15 to 30 minutes with longer for key note speakers. The colloquium is intended to be informal and will be held at the magnificent country house of Gregynog, a residential educational centre of the University of Wales. The house which is steeped in history is situated in a wooded parkland estate of some 750 acres. With this backdrop of setting it is hoped that this meeting with its wide scope of interests in High Performance Computing will be of a great interest and pleasure for all participants. Organisers: This colloquium is being organised as a collaboration between: Cardiff school of Engineering, UWC (Prof. H. R. Thomas, Dr. D. Kennedy, Cardiff) Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, UWC (Dr. A. H. Nelson, Dr. R. N. Philp, Cardiff) Dept. of Computer Science, UWC (Prof. D. Walker, Cardiff) Dept. of Computing Services, UWC (Dr. J. Martin, Cardiff) Depts. of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, UWS (Dr. Ian Masters, Swansea) Cost: The colloquium is sponsored in part by the University of Wales. Accommodation will be full board at Gregynog House at a total cost of 50 pounds per person for University of Wales members and 65 pounds per person for non-University of Wales members per person payable A.S.A.P. Cheques should be made payable to: University of Wales at Cardiff. Contact point: Dr. R. N. Philp. Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Wales at Cardiff, PO BOX 913, Cardiff CF2 3YB Wales Roger.Philp@astro.cf.ac.uk Tel: 01222 874458 ext 5032 Fax: 01222 874056 -- Dr. Roger Philp Rm: N2.24 Parallel Computing Support Manager Tel: +44 (0)1222-874458 ext 5032 Dept of Physics and Astronomy Fax: +44 (0)1222-874056 UWCC,PO Box 913, Email: R.Philp@astro.cf.ac.uk Cardiff CF2 3YB, UK. WWW URL: http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/computing/parallel/ From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:15 From: Wendell Waldron Subject: Wing span Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TotalNet Inc. Reply-To: wenwon@astral.magic.ca Does anyone know if the Boeing 747-500 series (if they were built) could fit into current gate configurations? I've been told that the span of the new wing would only allow for the 747-500 series to land at certain airports. Thanks in advance. From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:15 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: number of takeoffs per plane type References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Marc SCHAEFFER wrote in article ... > I'm looking to find a place on the net (or elsewhere) where I can find > the following information for all current and older planes : > > - total number of takeoffs (and hopefully landings) per plane type > - total number of flight hours per plane type > - total number of passengers per plane type I don't think such information has been compiled. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has the nearest thing (other than insurance companies which may not be willing to share). The BTS numbers will soon be available on the internet from the FAA Home Page (www.faa.gov) under System Safety Information (31 March) and may be available now at www.bts.gov. From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:16 From: "GvE" Subject: Re: number of takeoffs per plane type References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NLR Marc SCHAEFFER wrote in article ... > I'm looking to find a place on the net (or elsewhere) where I can find > the following information for all current and older planes : > > - total number of takeoffs (and hopefully landings) per plane type > - total number of flight hours per plane type > - total number of passengers per plane type Total number of takeoff per plane type is very HOT information. There are number of companies providing such information. That can cost you easily $10,000 to $20,000. Unfortunaly, each of these companies cannot provide you with the actual number of takeoffs per plane. They will claim that can, but thrust me, it is not true! If you find the number of takeoffs you also will find the number of landings. They are the same! You can find some data on the number of flights and passengers in the USA on Bureau of Transportation Statistics homepage: http://www.bts.gov/smart/cat/zfaasha.html#USCACO Good luck Gerard van Es From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:16 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: number of takeoffs per plane type References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:37 AM 2/13/97, you wrote: >I'm looking to find a place on the net (or elsewhere) where I can find >the following information for all current and older planes : > >- total number of takeoffs (and hopefully landings) per plane type >- total number of flight hours per plane type >- total number of passengers per plane type try: http://airsafe.com -- Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-9455/4815 From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:16 From: Dan Linden Subject: Re: Turboprop startup speed question (long) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services It just so happens I am a mechanic at ORD and I work on the ATP's. Usually the flight crew fire up the #2 engine immediatly after everyone is boarded so that they can heat he plane.The United Express ATP's (there are nine) do not have APU's installed. They were removed 2 years ago because of their high operating cost. The flight crew have to wait for a release from the tower, and from distpatch brfore they can depart. This can take several minutes and since there were two other aircraft before the ATP they had to wait their turn. Dan From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:16 From: Ken Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of North Texas I remember hearing about an incident that happened aboard a Connie some (read many) years ago: A lady sat on a lav toilet in which the outside servicing plug had not been secured properly. The aircraft had a cabin pressure leak through the opening and when she sat down, she effectively sealed sealed the leak. Of course, she couldn't get up off the toilet. The flight engineer figured out the problem (amid much embarrasment) and the aircraft had to be descended and depressurized to free her recalcitrant posterior. From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:16 From: jarvisge@telkom.co.za (Eden Jarvis) Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The South African Internet Exchange. >Peter Little wrote in article >... >> On 7 Jan 1997, a South African Airways A320 [Flight SA327] flight >> from Johannesburg to Cape Town, the pilot had to decrease altitude in According to SABC News the plane was an A300-B2. From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:16 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , "Gerald M. Barca" writes > One of our favorite tricks as >employees to show people how strong the vacuum is is to take the toilet >paper and pull it across the cabin, placing the other end in the toilet and >flushing. A couple of seconds and one WHOOSH later and all of the paper is >gone. So YOU were the culprit, you naughty person ! It was doing such tricks that prvoved to be a major factor in creating pipe blockages. The paper goes in dry and sticks to the slightest obstruction. Once in a while we throw ice cubes with acetic acid down the system to clean it out, which seems to help. The major blockages now seem to be caused by freeby cosmetic pots that fall in. -- _J_O_H_N____R_E_L_P_H____________ john@guava.demon.co.uk Teddington, Middlesex in Cold Old England. From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:16 From: Ken Subject: Re: SAS ditching near LAX References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of North Texas Niels Sampath wrote: > > In article > bizfixer@aol.com "Bizfixer" writes: > > >Tokyo/Haneda - similar setup to SFO - had a series of accidents in the 60s > >which demonstrate an important moral: never fly with someone whose number > >is up! An Air Canada DC-8 hit the seawall and cartwheeled down the > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > >runway, killing all but 17. > > This doesn't ring any bells with me, and Air Canada never flew (sched.) > to Tokyo in the `60s. Canadian Pacific maybe?? It was Canadian Pacific and it happened the day before the BOAC B-707 broke-up over Mt. Fuji. Ken Madden From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:16 From: s_odle@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Props vs Fuselage Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. On 01 Mar 97 02:44:58 , Tom Gibson wrote: >I've noticed that all of the old prop airliners (from the DC-4 through >at least the Electra) have no passenger windows exactly even with the >geometrical plane of the props. Was this a CAA requirement for >certification? I assume it was to avoid passenger injury if a prop let >go; is this correct? Is it still a requirement, or is there a >reliability threshold that now needs to be met before this requirement >is waived? Thanks. Whether of not the window is there would make no difference if a blade departed. From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:16 From: s_odle@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Manufactures of FMS units in Comercial Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. On 01 Mar 97 02:45:00 , Dave Chaloux wrote: >Does anyone happen to know who manufactures the FMS units in >various Commercial Aircraft? > >I would also be interested in a list of manufactures for GA. Honeywell Collins Global Wolfsburg Universal Navigation From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:17 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: Connies on promo tour References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article joliver@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu (James Oliver) writes: >I may be climbing up fools mountain thinking that this question can even >be answered, but here goes. >After WW II the Constellation apparently went on a promo tour to show th >public this magnificent new airliner. Sometime around 1950 (may be a bi >before or a bit after) a Connie came to Detroit (YIP) and the public was >invited to tour the aircraft. >Is there a Connie Specialist who might possibly know precisely which >Connie came to Detroit? I do not recall any airline markings and I feel >it was just billed as << The Constellation >>. I remember that souvenir >postcards were handed out too. Given the timeframe, this was almost certainly the 'prototype' model 1049 Super Constellation. This particular airframe had an interesting history. It was actually the very first Constellation (C-69) of all, delivered to the USAAF in July 1943. After the war it was Howard Hughes' personal transport (or one of them). Then in 1950 it was reacquired by Lockheed and converted to an L1049. First flight as such was 10-13-50 so any publicity tour would probably not have been before 1951. Serial number was 1961. Regarding the N-number, this is a bit of a problem. Originally NC25600, it became NX6700 then N67900 with Lockheed but I don't have any registration dates. I would suggest N67900 in 1950 except that I have seen a photo of it as an L1049 in Lockheed colors in which N25600 is visible. This may be 'retouched' photo however. regards .............. Brian Maddison From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:17 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: MD80 and ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article Jan-Erik Andelin writes: >Have any airlines obtained ETOPS for their MD80's ? >SAS ? Alaska ? BWIA ? Transwede used to operate MD-83 between Oslo and FLL under the 90-minute rule. Eastbound they stopped at Gander (YQX), westbound at both KEF and YQX. I believe this service is now flown (to MCO) by 757s. .............. Brian Maddison From kls Sat Mar 1 18:42:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Mar 97 18:42:17 From: matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. ... >> >Boeing is now offering a brand new aircraft for 2006 to avoid >> >airlines choosing the Airbus product. It is also reported that Boeing >> >is threatening it's sub-contractors if they should participate in the >> >A3XX project I kind of doubt this is true. In the USA it is generally illegal to for one party to dictate who another party can and cannot do business with, especially if the parties involved are competitors. The legal term for this behavior is secondary boycott. If true, this would constitute a secondary boycott under US Anti-trust laws, which is a criminal offense, and a civil offense which carries with it very large damage awards if you can prove it (3 time actual damages). If it were true, I am sure Airbus would be busy in Court or the US Justice department would be busy. From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:03 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: MD80 and ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In Jan-Erik Andelin writes: >Have any airlines obtained ETOPS for their MD80's ? >SAS ? Alaska ? BWIA ? Alaska pretty much follows the Aleutians, so not much need for ETOPS. There's plenty of islands in the Carib, too. BTW, the USN has been flying their C-9B (DC9-30) US mainland to Hawaii (150 min?) for over 20 years without losing one. rd From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:04 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD80 and ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Have any airlines obtained ETOPS for their MD80's ? >>SAS ? Alaska ? BWIA ? >Alaska pretty much follows the Aleutians, so not much need for ETOPS. I wondered about that. With all the base closures, is it still possible to follow the islands and fly non-ETOPS? None of the Alaska MD-82/83s seem to have any special properties so you're probably right, but I'd love to see a definitive response. I just checked Alaska's web site (http://www.alaskaair.com/) and found that they fly to the following sites in Russia: GDX Magadan ? Kharbarovsk ? Petropovlovsk/Kamchatski VVO Vladivostok UUS Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (effective May 10, 1997) For the three that I could find IATA codes for, I plotted the great circle flight paths along with the 60 minute rule-time (non-ETOPS) ranges. The URL to get you that map is http://www.chicago.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=ANC-GDX,ANC-VVO,ANC-UUS&ETOPS=60 All three route stay well north of the Aleutians, and appear to be beyond the "no-go" area for non-ETOPS. That may not be accurate, though, as the database of alternates is not complete. There's also nothing which says the great circle route is used -- 90 minute ETOPS for North Atlantic flights is decidedly off the great circle route, but in the early days of ETOPS it was used because it was that or nothing. Alaska could fly along the Aleutians to avoid ETOPS even though it's a longer route. (They might even catch better tailwinds for the eastbound flights.) >There's plenty of islands in the Carib, too. There are, but not enough to stay within the 60 minute rule-time of non-ETOPS flying. The FAA developed rules for 75 minute and then 85 minute rule-times at least as far back as the 1970s, and perhaps even in the 1960s, specifically to allow twins to fly the Carribean without overly circuitous routes. I can't find any obvious no-go areas at 60 minutes so perhaps some key airports have now been built up to support jets, at least in emergencies. -- 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 Mar 2 15:18:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:04 From: "Hans Jakobsson" Subject: Coroguard Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: . Good day gents, came to think about the painting of the wings of most jetliners. The standard paint scheme for a wing is aluminium-coroguard-aluminium, but a small percentage of the world's airlines paint their wings. Lufthansa, for instance, has all-white wings. Does coroguard come in different colours or have they simply painted white over the coroguard? Thanks and best regards, Hans Jakobsson =========================== hansj@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~hansj =========================== From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:04 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A300-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Marc SCHAEFFER wrote: > >I wonder if cancelling the remaining orders was not more expensive than using >the oversized plane, at least as long as buyers would have been found for all >15 planes. >Or did Airbus negociate the planes for Air Inter (or should I say Air France >Europe) ? (I had a post on this thread but it did not show up, so I'll repeat what I said in the other post.) In late 1995, Air Inter was negotiating with Philippine Airlines (PR) to sell some or all of its A330s to PR. IIRC, IT's pilot union voted down the proposal. In early 1996, PR announced a sizable Airbus order (8 A330s, 4 A340-300s, and 12 A320s). My guess is PR took over IT's A330 delivery positions, and IT is off the hook. I think by dealing through Airbus, IT did not have to deal with the union directly. Perhaps, that's why the cancellation has never been officially announced. >By the way which type of plane replaces the A330-300 ? I don't think the order was replaced. IT is using smaller planes on the routes that used to be serve by the A330. From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:04 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) Subject: Re: A300-300 of Air Inter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr "Marc SCHAEFFER" wrote: >J. Heilig wrote : >>According to a friend who works (or I should say worked) for Air >>Inter,they were simply too big for Air Inter's needs. They were >>flying them from Paris to Marseille less than half full most of the >>time. That's why they didn't take any more and are getting rid of >>the ones they have. ... >By the way which type of plane replaces the A330-300 ? Air Inter increases its narrow body fleet (a319/a321) to make its shuttle between Toulouse, Marseille, Nice. From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:05 From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Karl Swartz wrote: >However, some in your list don't clearly have a need for the A3XX. >Qantas and Air New Zealand strike me as prime examples of Boeing's >finding that most 747 customers bought the plane for its range, not >capacity. I don't have hard data to back that up, but I'm not aware >of any markets where either has a need for a dramatic increase in >capacity. NZ actually made that decision back in '71 in choosing to go with the DC-10-30 over the 747. Traffic has increased a bit since then though... I wonder though where the cut between increasing frequency and buying a bigger plane lies. Full aircraft have been a fact of life ever since CO pulled out of the South Pacific, and believe me, an overbooked 747-400 from LAX to SYD is no fun. On the range front, I wonder if QF & NZ would be interested in longer range aircraft. While both airlines have always been early customers for long range models (especially the 767 ERs and 747-400) the 747-400 can reach the entire Pacific rim and the lucrative parts of Asia as far as India from both AKL and SYD. The only potentially significant route that I can see that QF & NZ can't fly right now is AKL/SYD to New York, and I just can't see them buying an aircraft for one route, even if they could get landing rights at JFK or EWR. (South America is also a stretch -- it's doable with a 747-400 to some parts, but I don't think anyone much wants to. Chile is served by meeting LAN Chile at PPT; Aerolineas Argentinas flies to AKL (747-400 again) about once a week. I don't know what you do to get to Brazil.) I suspect that a 767 with 747-400 range would be welcome though. That would mean an easier transition between n and n+1 747-400 flights on congested routes, as well as serving long thin routes. Being able to fly AKL/SYD to LHR direct would make QF & NZ very, very happy, but that's not on the cards for the near future. -- 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 Mar 2 15:18:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:05 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) writes: >In article , >Terry Schell wrote: >> >>I guess what I am saying is that I don't buy the "reducing congestion" >>argument for the next generation super-jumbo. If there were intense >>congestion problems we would be seeing pressure to replace the smaller >>planes with bigger ones... but the current trend in most markets is >>the opposite. >In Europe and in the US, airlines are not using bigger planes to replace >smaller ones. This is not true in East/Southeast Asia. Malaysia (MH) >and Thai (TG) replaced some of their A300s with A330s. In fact, for >MH, they dumped their whole A300 fleet after they have taken deliveries >of the A330. That's at least 20-30% increase in capacity. Singapore will >replace some of its A310s with the B777; and that's about 40-50% increase >in capacity. I would say the majority of the A330 orders and some of the >B777 orders made by East Asian airlines are for replacing smaller planes >(e.g., Philippine, Korean, Cathay, etc.) I should have mentioned that Asia seems to be a bit of an exception, but I really don't think that it makes economic sense at this time to build planes that offer a 15-20% increase in passengers per cycle but will require massive airport modifications. It would make more sense just to expand the handful of airports that would benefit from these larger planes so that they can cope with 450-500 passenger per cycle planes (or route more flights around them). Only time will tell what happens to the airport congestion in Asia, but personally I don't think it will get *that* much worse even if passenger miles in asia triple or quadruple in the next decade; I think the growth will come in new markets rather than in the established (ie, congested) ones. Sincerely, Terry Schell From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:05 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) writes: > I can buy the flight separation argument, although I haven't seen >figures suggesting that the A3XX will require more than the 747-400. >(Can someone shed more light on this?). I was just speculating; I don't really know if it will require more separation. I actually doubt that anyone (including the engineers at Airbus) will be able to predict this very well. I do know that more efficient wings typically produce higher velocity wake vorticies. It is an important issue since if the new plane holds 20% more passengers but requires 20% more separation and runway time the congestion has not improved. > Turnaround times depend to some >extent on the efficiency of your ground operations. More gate space is >normally much more politically easy to build than more runway capacity. >Ditto (although perhaps to a lesser extent than gate space). I think that getting larger gates will be a significant problem at the airports that might benefit from the reduced congestion. Increased wingspan and fuselage lengths will mean that terminals will have to be expanded into areas that are currently taxiways; resulting in a different type of congestion. Speaking of airport modifications... will the 3XX require longer runways? Is it too early to tell? Sincerely, Terry Schell From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:05 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr >> One project, according to Bair, is a 777-200X with 720,000 lbs MGTOW, >> allowing a range of 8,500-9,000 nm. (From Chicago, Perth is about the >> only interesting city outside that range. New York to Singapore or >> Auckland are possible, with Sydney being within reach if the 9,000 nm >> range is achieved. London to Perth is even possible, though the more >> commercially interesting eastern cities of Australia, and New Zealand, >> are still out of reach.) Boeing wants to devolop twin long range but there are many limits (ETOPS, engine,etc...). It can announce, but it can not do yet. More, 777 have many difficulties with fly by wire, a part of BQW and CPA is grounded. >> The article notes a Boeing market analysis that determined that most >> 747s have been purchased for range, not capacity. Here's how they >> broke down the choices: >> >> 60% range >> 30% capacity >> 10% Japanese domestic (obviously capacity, albeit specialized) One year ago, Boeing said the contrary to justify 747 600X. Boeing tries to convunce every one there is no market. But many airlines do not believe in it, and they are the customers.... >Isn't the -500X the longer range derivative (similar capacity to -400) >while the -600X the larger capacity derivative (similar range)? yes From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:05 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Boeing wants to devolop twin long range but there are many limits >(ETOPS, engine,etc...). It can announce, but it can not do yet. In what way is ETOPS a limit? Getting airlines to accept ETOPS across the Pacific? Perhaps, but it's already being done to a limited extent and the rapid conversion of the North Atlantic made it quite clear that airlines would take ETOPS if it gave them cost savings. The engine manufacturers have long been saying that their initial 777 engines have growth potential to the 100,000 lbs thrust levels needed for the very long range 777-200. The surprising rapidity of engine development is what led Boeing to drop plans for the shorter 777-100X in the first place -- they realized the engines were growing quickly enough to make the 777-100X obsolete before it even flew. Engines were a much bigger concern for the 747-500X/600X, and still are for the A3XX and A340-600X. >More, 777 have many difficulties with fly by wire, a part of BQW and >CPA is grounded. Would you care to substantiate that, since it completely contradicts all other indications? Also, what are BQW and CPA??? >>> The article notes a Boeing market analysis that determined that most >>> 747s have been purchased for range, not capacity. Here's how they >>> broke down the choices: >>> >>> 60% range >>> 30% capacity >>> 10% Japanese domestic (obviously capacity, albeit specialized) > >One year ago, Boeing said the contrary to justify 747 600X. Boeing >tries to convunce every one there is no market. But many airlines do >not believe in it, and they are the customers.... Boeing has made some questionable decisions because that's what the market demanded. (Lack of cockpit commonality from the 757/767 to the 747-400 and then to the 777 is a prime example.) To say that Boeing is trying to dictate to the market is a fantasy. In any case, Boeing's numbers don't say there isn't a market for a larger plane, nor is Boeing making that claim. They are simply saying that the market is small compared to the market for longer range planes. Without any overwhelming urge to build the largest for sake of national pride or some such nonsense, Boeing is simply pursuing a rational response to the market -- building the plane for which they perceive there is the larger market, a plane which not incidentally will probably be much cheaper to develop and thus combined with the larger market will be considerably more profitable. -- 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 Mar 2 15:18:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:05 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>>>>Even before launching the >>>>>A3XX, Airbus basically has at least three customers in its basket, namely, >>>>>Air France, Lufthansa, and Korean Air (Korea is likely to be the first >>>>>Asian A3XX partner). ... >>And FEDEX, UPS, DHL for freighter one > >FedEx doesn't even like 747s, and DHL has nothing bigger than a DC-8. >The A3XX's double deck arrangement isn't well suited for freighters, >either. Why in the world would you think those carriers would be >likely A3XX customers?! Just for info, FEDEX excutive chairman said in financial time that A3XX is the best airplane for FEDEX needs.SO.... You see only all pax configuration whereas freight growth increases. So combi and freighter can be used. From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:06 From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Props vs Fuselage Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington In article , Tom Gibson wrote: >I've noticed that all of the old prop airliners (from the DC-4 through >at least the Electra) have no passenger windows exactly even with the >geometrical plane of the props. Was this a CAA requirement for >certification? I assume it was to avoid passenger injury if a prop let >go; is this correct? Is it still a requirement, or is there a It's still done on many prop aircraft. I assume it's to avoid having to replace the window frequently due to erosion from debris chucked up by the props during ground operations. The material used for aircraft windows does scratch easily. -- 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 Mar 2 15:18:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:06 From: Bill Chivers Subject: Re: Props vs Fuselage Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chivers Consultants In article , s_odle@earthlink.net writes >On 01 Mar 97 02:44:58 , Tom Gibson wrote: > >>I've noticed that all of the old prop airliners (from the DC-4 through >>at least the Electra) have no passenger windows exactly even with the >>geometrical plane of the props. Was this a CAA requirement for >>certification? I assume it was to avoid passenger injury if a prop let >>go; is this correct? Is it still a requirement, or is there a >>reliability threshold that now needs to be met before this requirement >>is waived? Thanks. > >Whether of not the window is there would make no difference if a blade >departed. Absolutely. Probably more to do with shedding ice. Our aeroplanes all have dents in line with the blade disc, in spite of the fact that the skin is thickened at that point. Bill Chivers 'my other signature file has something funny at the bottom of it' From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:06 From: kspringe@mail.phoenix.net (Ken) Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: C-Com/Phoenix Data Net (713) 486-8337/ http://www.phoenix.net Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote: >Recent news reports about TWA800 has shown one of the relatives speaking >out on the 747-100 after a tour of the NTSB reconstruction site. He said >that the plane was well past its planned lifetime and should have been >retired years ago. That is nothing but utter crap from someone that is trying to get a lot of money from a lawsuit. What would you expect him to say? Do you believe OJ when he says he is innocent? As a pilot for a major airline flying the 747 I can tell you there is absolute NO truth in that statement whatsoever. From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:06 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A340 development References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) wrote: > In addition, according to Avweek, the first 777-200IGW was deliverd on 7 > February to British Airways, and went into service for British Airways on 9 > February, 2 more were apparently slated for delivery this month to BA. Malaysia Airlines' 777s, the first of which rolls out of the paint hangar this weekend, are all increased gross weight models. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:06 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Splashproof? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In jokim@athena.mit.edu (John H Kim) writes: > >This came up in a discussion I was having with a friend. How >resistant are the electronics in a typical airliner cockpit to >spilled drinks? What sorts of procedural and deesign safeguards >are there? It's always been a problem. Coca Cola is nasty. To dissolve it, you have to apply more Coca Cola. Waterproofing of the cockpit items from liquid spills should be, or is a requirement. Little things, like placing cupholders to the outside, rather than near the center pedestal, have helped. In the 737, spilled drinks can run downstairs onto the weather radar transceiver and other stuff, so a drip shield is placed above them. rd From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:06 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Manufactures of FMS units in Comercial Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In Dave Chaloux writes: > >Does anyone happen to know who manufactures the FMS units in >various Commercial Aircraft? Collins: DC10-30 KSSU configuration (AINS-70) Canadair RJ Honeywell 757/767, 747-400, 777 Fokker 100 Honeywell/Sextant A320 etc. Smiths Industries (was Lear-Siegler) 737-300/400/500 & 600/700/800 Nearly everybody is making what they call FMS/GPS for retrofit applications, but most lack performance management, which drives autothrottles. rd From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:06 From: lucky@accessone.com (Lucky) Subject: Re: Manufactures of FMS units in Comercial Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lucky Dog Aviation s_odle@earthlink.net wrote: >On 01 Mar 97 02:45:00 , Dave Chaloux wrote: >>Does anyone happen to know who manufactures the FMS units in >>various Commercial Aircraft? >Honeywell >Collins >Global Wolfsburg >Universal Navigation Also, Smiths Industries builds the FMC on the 737. Honeywell builds the FMC on other Boeing airplanes. From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:06 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: BAe-146 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In Alan Sanderson 408 447-3859 writes: >The flight time was about the same for the 146 as the bigger jets, >as the 146 only climbed to 10,000 ft. where the others go to 30,000. ^^^^^^^^^^ Aha! Maybe that explains why the #4 Lyc engine on a PSA BAe-146 exploded at 27,000 feet over Fresno. :) rd From kls Sun Mar 2 15:18:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,alt.books.tom-clancy Path: bounce-back Date: 02 Mar 97 15:18:06 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 737 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , rbrown@stevens-tech.edu (Richard Brown) wrote: > I am reading DEBT OF HONOR by Tom Clancy and was wondering about something. > At the start of chapter 39, it explains how Japanese consulates in Seattle, > San Fran, New York, and Honolulu were vacated and the Japanese were flown to > Vancouver. The people from Honolulu boarded a United 737 for a five hour trip > to BC. How plausible would it be for the 737 to make this hop? Some models of the 737 are approved for ETOPS, but I don't believe any are approved for an ETOPS flight of this duration. Operators are using 757s from the west coast to Hawaii, but not 737s. Plus I think a flight from HNL to Vancouver would be longer than five hours- that's about what it takes to reach San Francisco. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Mar 3 01:30:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Mar 97 01:30:12 From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concord World Travel On 01 Mar 97 02:44:59 , tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) wrote: >I guess what I am saying is that I don't buy the "reducing congestion" >argument for the next generation super-jumbo. If there were intense >congestion problems we would be seeing pressure to replace the smaller >planes with bigger ones... but the current trend in most markets is >the opposite. We could reduce the flight cycles in most markets by >100% even with currently avail. planes, but we are not doing it. What the overall picture is of bigger or smaller aircraft being used to replace existing ones I can't say without spending a lot of time researching it, but here is certainly some replacement of smaller aircraft by bigger ones. For instance, BA has said that by about 2005 (I can't recall the exact year), the smallest jet aircraft in its fleet is expected to be the size of a 757. And if you look at the trans-Atlantic market, you can see United being quite busy in replacing 767s by 777s. -- Roger Chung-Wee Member, UK Chapter of the Caribbean Tourism Organisation. Publisher of Caribbean Aviation Newsletter. Tel: +44(0)181-342 8400 From kls Mon Mar 3 01:30:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Mar 97 01:30:12 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) writes: >Boeing wants to devolop twin long range but there are many limits >(ETOPS, engine,etc...). It can announce, but it can not do yet. >More, 777 have many difficulties with fly by wire, a part of BQW and >CPA is grounded. Well, since they already have the IGW... why can't they use that extra capacity for fuel? The 777 engines were designed to have growth room. ETOPS is already being delt with. I don't understand the problem here. Can you point me to *any* published sources that report 777's that are currently grounded for FBW reasons? Are BQW/CPA supposed to be airline acronyms? Please explain this claim. >One year ago, Boeing said the contrary to justify 747 600X. Boeing >tries to convunce every one there is no market. But many airlines do >not believe in it, and they are the customers.... Okay... which airlines "believe in it"? How would you measure their belief in #'s of planes ordered before the year 2000? I cannot see a market that is large enough to justify the development costs at this point. This new plane could cost twice as much as a 747-400 and carry 20% more passengers; even with substantial fuel savings, I just don't see the airlines lining up. BTW don't count the national airlines from the Airbus consortium countries as a "market." They are committed to buying airbus products and their 3XX orders will just subtract from their other airbus orders (no net increase in profits for Airbus). For the purposes of market analysis you need to look at how much *new* revenue the new product will bring in. Sincerely, Terry From kls Mon Mar 3 01:30:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Mar 97 01:30:12 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) writes: >Just for info, FEDEX excutive chairman said in financial time that >A3XX is the best airplane for FEDEX needs.SO.... hmmm... does this mean that FEDEX is ready to order the plane, or it looks good to them? I guess I see why it looks good to them, but the decision will be made based on the price that Airbus can deliver the plane for. At this point, I would be suprised if FEDEX ordered it but it does sound like they might be gearing up to do just that. Sincerely, Terry "anyone-got-more-details" Schell From kls Mon Mar 3 01:30:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Mar 97 01:30:12 From: Alan Wong Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Don Stokes wrote: > On the range front, I wonder if QF & NZ would be interested in longer > range aircraft. While both airlines have always been early customers for > long range models (especially the 767 ERs and 747-400) the 747-400 can > reach the entire Pacific rim and the lucrative parts of Asia as far as > India from both AKL and SYD. The only potentially significant route that > I can see that QF & NZ can't fly right now is AKL/SYD to New York, and I > just can't see them buying an aircraft for one route, even if they could > get landing rights at JFK or EWR. Qantas and most probably also Air New Zealand are interested in longer range aircraft. When the 777 visited Australia (think it was in December 1995), there were reports of "very serious discussions" on future versions of the 747. I would think these discussions centred on the proposed 747-500X rather than 747-600X, since as Karl said, range rather than capacity is more important for both airlines. At present, a 747-400 flying from Los Angeles to Sydney is severely payload limited (I believe no cargo and 100 empty seats). Also Singapore to London is rather marginal. For both of these routes, a 747-500X or any aircraft with a similar range will be more suitable. Even with 747-500X or similar range aircraft, Sydney to New York at almost 10000 nautical miles is out of range. > (South America is also a stretch -- it's doable with a 747-400 to some > parts, but I don't think anyone much wants to. Chile is served by > meeting LAN Chile at PPT; Aerolineas Argentinas flies to AKL (747-400 > again) about once a week. I don't know what you do to get to Brazil.) At the moment Aerolineas Argentinas flies 3 times a week from Buenos Aires to Auckland in a 747-200. On the westbound leg, it makes a stopover in Rio Gallegos at the tip of South America. A 747-400 would be able to do both ways non-stop to Auckland, but to Sydney, the westbound leg seems to be at best marginal. A 747-500X would be able to do both legs nonstop. Although the Australia/New Zealand to South America market is very thin at the moment, I would not discount its growth potential over the next 10-20 years. And knowing that an aircraft bought is likely to be used for 20 years at least, I think Qantas and Air New Zealand would consider South America in its long term fleet requirements. > I suspect that a 767 with 747-400 range would be welcome though. That > would mean an easier transition between n and n+1 747-400 flights on > congested routes, as well as serving long thin routes. The 777-200X, although larger than any likely 767 derivative, seems to be the answer. With a longer range than the 747-400, it may even be used for marginal 747-400 routes such as Sydney - Los Angeles or Singapore - London. And with a better frequency too. From kls Mon Mar 3 01:30:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Mar 97 01:30:12 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: MD80 and ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) writes: >Alaska pretty much follows the Aleutians, so not much need for ETOPS. >There's plenty of islands in the Carib, too. On which Aleutians are there suitable runways for an MD80? Sincerely, Terry "just-curious" Schell From kls Mon Mar 3 01:30:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Mar 97 01:30:13 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Toilet sucks in child References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA In article , Ken wrote: > I remember hearing about an incident that happened aboard a Connie some > (read many) years ago: > > A lady sat on a lav toilet in which the outside servicing plug had not > been secured properly. The aircraft had a cabin pressure leak through > the opening and when she sat down, she effectively sealed sealed the > leak. Of course, she couldn't get up off the toilet. The flight > engineer figured out the problem (amid much embarrasment) and the > aircraft had to be descended and depressurized to free her recalcitrant > posterior. I have always been skeptical about these lavatory sucking people in stories, and this is an example of why. On a conventional (non vacuum) airline toilet there is at least one and sometimes two valves between the toilet and the outside of the airplane. The cap is the last valve in series, so not only would it had to have been off, the valve in the bottom of the tank would have had to have been open and on some aircraft there is another valve between the holding tank valve and the cap which also would have had to have been open. So you are really talking abou three failures that would have had to have occurred to suck someone into a conventional toilet. Possible, yes. Likely, no. Besides if all the valves were open and the cap were missing that toilet would be screaming with the air rushing through it. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Mon Mar 3 01:30:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Mar 97 01:30:13 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In "P. Wezeman" writes: > >On 13 Feb 1997, rhett wrote: > >> To my knowledge, the C-141 is not in civil use except for a couple >>that NASA use. > > I seem to recall that Lockheed had some hopes of selling civilian >Starlifters but that was many years ago and the plane is obsolete now. A few months after the production of the C-141 stopped, there was a short blurb in AWST about some third-world countries approaching Lockheed regarding purchase of Starlifters. Only problem was the jigs and dies had belonged to the U.S. Air Force and, when Lockheed didn't want to buy them, they were cut up for scrap. Lou. From kls Mon Mar 3 01:30:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Mar 97 01:30:13 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Re[2]: C-130s and other military aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In "Peter Mchugh" writes: > >>Meg Appleton wrote: >>> I was curious if the C-130's and C-141's have any commercial >>>utility. > I think it is not true that C-130s(L-382) are operating in civil > use...the C-130 is a military aircraft which is on the Department > of State embargo list and therefore is not eligible for > exportation. > > Some civilian versions (L-100, etc) are in use but have mods > which make them different from the military version. (removal of > air drop rails, etc.). This aircraft has FAA civil > certification. Years ago, Alaska Airlines had three L-382B's. We used these aircraft both for civilian and military freight. The interior of the plane had all the rails and such identical to its C-130E brother. We would haul 463-L pallets that secured the same on our Hercs as they did on the military Hercs. Lou. From kls Mon Mar 3 01:30:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Mar 97 01:30:13 From: tbird209@cris.com (An Interested Party) Subject: Re: AA JFK-LHR References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services On 31 Jan 97 14:29:25 , attaboy101@aol.com (Attaboy101) wrote: >Forgive me if this has been covered already. I have noticed that American >Airlines is flying some A300's on its JFK-LHR route, presumably replacing >767's. What factors would go into the airline's decision to make this >change? Thanks. The A300-600's that AA is now using to Europe were recently freed up from AA's Caribbean route system. The airline is replacing them in the Caribbean with hushkitted 727's and 757's. The 767 aircraft from the former near-european routes are being redeployed on AA's ever-expanding South American and continental european services. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:31 From: "Anthony Chiu" Subject: Re: MAS signed a MOU for six B777-200Xs References: <5fp5i7$kbq@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM H Andrew Chuang wrote in article <5fp5i7$kbq@chronicle.concentric.net>... >> It will be interesting to see which of the following new projects Boeing > will launch at the Paris Air Show in June: B767-400ERX, B747-400IGW, > B747 stretch, B777-200X, and B777-300X. It is interesting what Chuang is speculating about Boeing's next move. Perhaps with Boeing taking overr MDC, they will utilise the team with the DC-8-60 expertise and produce a 777-400 with the body twice as long as the 777-200 and a new wing! Come on Boeing, be game! From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:31 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: MD80 and ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:30 AM 3/3/97, you wrote: >rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) writes: > >>Alaska pretty much follows the Aleutians, so not much need for ETOPS. >>There's plenty of islands in the Carib, too. > >On which Aleutians are there suitable runways for an MD80? Several, actually! ADAK being one. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-9455/4815 From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:32 From: Brian Wiklem Subject: Re: MD80 and ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sony Interactive Studios Reply-To: brian_wiklem@interactive.sony.com Jan-Erik Andelin wrote: > Have any airlines obtained ETOPS for their MD80's ? > SAS ? Alaska ? BWIA ? A few years back, about '94 I noticed at LAX a Hawaiian Airlines DC-9, and I was thinking, "is this thing flying to Hawaii?" as I figured it was inconceivable to fly that route... Perhaps it was on lease, but it was in full livery... Any comments..? Brian From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:32 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD80 and ETOPS (and ferry flights) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >A few years back, about '94 I noticed at LAX a Hawaiian Airlines >DC-9, and I was thinking, "is this thing flying to Hawaii?" as >I figured it was inconceivable to fly that route... >Perhaps it was on lease, but it was in full livery... All of Hawaiian's DC-9s are DC-9-51 models, which AW&ST says have a still-air range of 1,260 miles, not even half the distance from HNL to LAX. It was probably a delivery flight of a "new" (to Hawaiian) aircraft. One of their DC-9s, N679HA, was delivered to Hawaiian in April 1994. Before that, it had been stored at Mojave, so it might well have stopped at LAX on its delivery flight. Before the debate resurges on how such a plane gets to Hawaii if it doesn't have the range for the trip, there's been much past debate on this point. See http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html for those old discussions. Obviously some range is gained by flying with no payload and possibly at slower speeds and/or lower altitudes. When that's still not enough, I suggested ferry tanks. Others said no way and offered a routing that would reach Hawaii from Asia -- island hopping from that direction allows a much smaller range. Well, last summer, United leased a 737-222 to Aloha. To get it from SFO to Hawaii, they installed seven 200 gallon ferry tanks, with the displaced seats being stored aft to be re-installed once the plane reached Hawaii. -- 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 Mar 9 12:39:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:32 From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ampex Corporation Terry Schell wrote: > BTW don't count the national airlines from the Airbus consortium > countries as a "market." They are committed to buying airbus products > and their 3XX orders will just subtract from their other airbus orders > (no net increase in profits for Airbus). For the purposes of market > analysis you need to look at how much *new* revenue the new product > will bring in. *Sigh* Another bogus claim of Airbus getting favorable treatment. Let's look at a fact or two: The major players in the Airbus consortium are from France, Germany, and Britain. Air France has ordered 777-200IGW+ aircraft. British Airways is operating an all-Boeing medium & long haul fleet. Hapag-Lloyd in Germany is the launch customer for the 737-800. Etc. OK, so Lufthansa, Air France, and Virgin Atlantic operate A330/A340 aircraft too. But if the national airlines were, as you allege, a captive market for Airbus, then the above facts would not be true... Malc. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:32 From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington In article , Alan Wong wrote: >At present, a 747-400 flying from Los Angeles to Sydney is severely payload >limited (I believe no cargo and 100 empty seats). Also Singapore to London Dunno about cargo, but last time I flew LAX-SYD non-stop the flight was *packed*. There wasn't a single empty seat, let alone 100. >The 777-200X, although larger than any likely 767 derivative, seems to be >the answer. With a longer range than the 747-400, it may even be used >for marginal 747-400 routes such as Sydney - Los Angeles or Singapore - >London. And with a better frequency too. Smaller planes would mean better frequency, although I suspect that the 777 is sufficiently large that it wouldn't make much difference to scheduling, but using a twin would improve the economics of the route. -- 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 Mar 9 12:39:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:33 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Roger wrote: >BA has said that by about 2005 >(I can't recall the exact year), the smallest jet aircraft in its >fleet is expected to be the size of a 757. He of all people on the list should remember how small Concorde is... (unless they plan to expand Concorde!) Regards Alex (NOT speaking for Eurocontrol) From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:33 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Roger wrote: >>BA has said that by about 2005 >>(I can't recall the exact year), the smallest jet aircraft in its >>fleet is expected to be the size of a 757. >He of all people on the list should remember how small Concorde is... Perhaps he's using some metric other than seats. Concorde's 100 seats certainly put it well below the 180-201 seats of a BA 757, but its 408,000 lbs MGTOW matches that of the heaviest current 767-300(ER). It's also quite a bit longer at 203.8 feet, compared to 155.3 feet for the 757-200 or 178.6 for the -300 version. Concorde does come up far short of the 757 on wingspan though (83.8 feet vs 124.8 feet). -- 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 Mar 9 12:39:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:33 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >On the range front, I wonder if QF & NZ would be interested in longer >range aircraft. While both airlines have always been early customers for >long range models (especially the 767 ERs and 747-400) the 747-400 can >reach the entire Pacific rim and the lucrative parts of Asia as far as >India from both AKL and SYD. The only potentially significant route that >I can see that QF & NZ can't fly right now is AKL/SYD to New York, and I >just can't see them buying an aircraft for one route, even if they could >get landing rights at JFK or EWR. I personally think there is a market for a bit more range. I've been stuck in LAX when our (QF) 747-400s were weight limited due to weather, etc. That is, people being bumped off the flight just so that it could get back to Sydney in one go. Surely that is an indication of a less than perfect range on one of our (if not the most) popular routes? >I suspect that a 767 with 747-400 range would be welcome though. That >would mean an easier transition between n and n+1 747-400 flights on >congested routes, as well as serving long thin routes. I can see Qantas being quite interested in a longer range 767. That is, if they ever decide to buy another a/c. >Being able to fly AKL/SYD to LHR direct would make QF & NZ very, very >happy, but that's not on the cards for the near future. What a flight that would be... Regards, -- Simon Craig --- Do you like old aircraft? Visit my Connie Page! From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:33 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , mba340@club-internet.fr wrote: > >> One project, according to Bair, is a 777-200X with 720,000 lbs MGTOW, > >> allowing a range of 8,500-9,000 nm. I attended the unveiling of the first Malaysian Airlines 777 Tuesday night at Paine Field in Everett. The airplane is an increased gross weight model (British Airways has already accepted at least one 777 IGW at this time). At the ceremony, the chairman of MAS signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) making Malaysia the launch customer for the 777-200X. The plane will fly non-stop from Kuala Lumpur to New York with 285 passengers, which will make it the longest range commercial jetliner in service (assuming no other changes in the jetliner fleet on the market today). C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:34 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I attended the unveiling of the first Malaysian Airlines 777 Tuesday night >at Paine Field in Everett. The airplane is an increased gross weight >model (British Airways has already accepted at least one 777 IGW at this >time). United has accepted their first one as well -- it was due at SFO late Friday evening. I believe they are the first IGW operator with PW4000 engines. Malaysian's 777s have Trents; are theirs the first IGWs so equipped? (BA has the GE90 on theirs, of course.) -- 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 Mar 9 12:39:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,alt.books.tom-clancy Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:34 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: 737 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:45 AM 3/1/97, you wrote: >I am reading DEBT OF HONOR by Tom Clancy and was wondering about something. >At the start of chapter 39, it explains how Japanese consulates in Seattle, >San Fran, New York, and Honolulu were vacated and the Japanese were flown to >Vancouver. The people from Honolulu boarded a United 737 for a five hour trip >to BC. How plausible would it be for the 737 to make this hop? The airplane could make the trip in fact, however, their are a lot of regulations pertaining to aircraft equipment that would have to be met in order to make this a passenger carrying trip. The best way to go is to put on GPS to meet the nav requirements but I am not sure the airplane will meet other ETOPS requirements such as time to alternates, extra fuel, or whatever. United certainly could not do this on other than a ferry flight at the current time. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-9455/4815 From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:34 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Dumb Douglas: nee - DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: : Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Filip De Vos wrote: > > > : Douglas killed the DC-8 to launch the DC-10. > > Was the CFM allready in the works then? I remember reading in a story > about SPANTAX, a Spanish charter airline, that they were planning to > re-fan their Super sixties, should the offer be made, but I think that > was with the JTD8? Memory is tenuous. Yes it was... an interesting fact I recently read about the CFM-56 series (in 'Encyclopedia of Aero Engines' by Gunston). Gunston says that the CFM 56 existed for nearly 10 years before it really caught on. If I remember right, CFMI was formed around 1970 or a little before, the basic engine first ran in the early 70's, but didn't sell in large numbers until the 737-300 in '81 (all dates may be off by a couple of years... I read the chapter on CFMI, thought 'hmmm, interesting' and then never re-read it). As for re-fanning with JT8D's, I think that all the JT8-D series engines prior to the -200 had about the same thrust or less than a JT4 turbojet, and definitely LESS than the JT3D turbofan... in other words, 'not much of an upgrade' in terms of performance, although noise and efficiency would improve. I do wonder why the CFM-56 is the upgrade of choice now instead of the JT8D-200. I guess the answer is 'its been done and certificated.' On a different subject, but one that started from this thread.... You mentioned SPANTAX... Were they not the last airline to operate the Convair CV-990 Coronado? It certainly gets my vote as one of the 'sexiest airliners' of all time, even if it was a total failure in the marketplace. And it had some sexy engineering features too... like the clever aft-fan development of the GE J-79 engine. Plus, the only airliner with a higher cruise speed than the Coronado is the Concorde. Does anyone know if Coronados are still flying anywhere? I remember being shocked when I saw one at Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl. about 6 years ago. I wondered what it was doing there at first, but soon found out. It was being broken up for scrap... it left in small pieces. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:34 From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: Dumb Douglas: nee - DC-8s in service; no 707s? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ampex Corporation Daniel Mecco wrote: > > The 707 was a much better aircraft, more versatile, and the U.S. > military contracts with Boeing IE: KC/RC/EC/135 --- AWACS & COBRA BALL > kept Boeing going back to the drawing board for many years to improve a > great product .Still today with the KC-135 the upgrade with the CFM-56, > engine the 707 airframe is still being improved and updated with the > latest technology Except that KC-135s are 717s, not 707s. Incidentally, it looks like the E8 JSTARS aircraft will mark the last "new" application for direct Dash-80 devivatives. On a barely related note, I was looking through my old copy of Jane's last night, and was seriously amused to see that the 777 "is basically a 767 with a plug inserted forward of the wing and an additional engine mounted over the rear fuselage". [ I don't have the date of this issue handy, but the 767 hadn't yet flown when the above was written. ] Malc. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:35 From: lestroyens@aol.com (LesTroyens) Subject: Floor vents in widebodies Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com After the Ermenonville/THY DC-10 crash, Douglas, Boeing and Lockheed were ordered to install vents so as to prevent floor+cables collapse in the case of explosive decompression in a widebody. (In Ermenonville, the cabin floor had collapsed following the cargo door failure.) Does anybody know of a case since where those vents have, in fact, saved the day? From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:35 From: lestroyens@aol.com (LesTroyens) Subject: Curtains vs. plastic eyelids Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In some of my picture books, you can clearly see quaint little curtains in the windows of early DC-8s. I think I remember curtains across the triangular Caravelle windows as a child (also business tables with rear facing seats...) Was the 707 the first airliner to feature plastic eyelids instead of curtains? From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:35 From: Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Ken wrote: > As a pilot for a major airline > flying the 747 I can tell you there is absolute NO truth in that > statement whatsoever. Well, I am in no way disputing the safety of 747-100s. However, since lawyers had been involved in that public statement by the plaintif and stated that TWA was operating planes after they should have been retired (or whatever exact wording had been used) I was thinking that they had found some sort of loophole that allowed them to make such a statement. The media reported this without questioning the validiy of such argument. If it were true, then the media should have really picked up on the fact that the FAA had allowed unsafe old planes to fly. If it were not true, then the media should not have reported that part of the newstory with the plaintif saying that TWA was operating planes that were past their "deadline". The fact that TWA has retired its 747-100s from what I heard does not help the argument that it is a perfectly fine plane. (hey, this retirement may have been purely economic, but in the context of TWA800, the public cannot help but put safety connotations into it as well). From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:35 From: swestin@ford.com (Stephen Westin ) Subject: Re: A340 development References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ford Motor Company In article matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) writes: > In addition, according to Avweek, the first 777-200IGW was deliverd on 7 > February to British Airways, and went into service for British Airways on 9 > February, 2 more were apparently slated for delivery this month to BA. Which probably correlates with the May 1 start of DTW-LHR non-stop service with the 777. Current daily flights from Detroit use a 747 (200?) and stop in Montreal. When I flew this a few times back around '98-'90, a 747-400 was used. -- -Stephen H. Westin swestin@ford.com The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:35 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: DC-7C Transatlantic Flight Questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Tom Gibson wrote: > > I realize that this is not in the area of modern commercial aviation, Which makes it no less interesting to me, personally ;-) [The charter for sci.aeronautics.airliners refers simply to airliners, and transport-category aircraft. Not jetliners, no reference to age, not even commercial. Karl] > First, I'd just like a subjective opinion of what it was like to fly the > DC-7C. Was it a joy to fly, or a real bear? I know, for example, that > many pilots didn't like to fly the Viscount, because of it's quite slow > roll rate. Did the '7C have any similar quirks? Any good DC-7 or DC-7C > stories? I have a second-hand DC-7C story. A co-worker flew occasionally on -7C's, and remembers his a nighttime flight very clearly. -7C's were powered by a turbo-compound version of the (notorious?) Wright R-3350. (When you see one in an old photograph, you might notice the trail of black scorching across the wings behind each engine). My friend had flown them in daylight several times, and never noticed anything "odd" compared to other airliners at all. On his night flight, however, he happened to have a window seat over the wing. On climb-out, he looked out and noticed what looked like a network of bright red veins visible through the cowl flaps- the exhaust plumbing to the blow-down turbines was glowing. When the -7C approached cruise altitude, the pilots shifted to cruise configuration with a reduction in propeller RPM, increased boost, and thus increasing the power produced by the blow-down turbines for maximum cruising efficiency. At this point, the manifolding went from glowing red to bright orange! Nothing went wrong on his flight- but the realization of just how hot things get inside the cowling on an R-3350 TC left quite an impression on him. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:36 From: cahill0@ibm.net Subject: aircraft windows Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: cahill0@ibm.net I'd like to know from what materials aircraft windshields and/or canopies are typically made. Thanks. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:36 From: dave lawson Subject: Re: Props vs Fuselage Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dave Lawson Bill Chivers wrote: > > In article , s_odle@earthlink.net > writes > >On 01 Mar 97 02:44:58 , Tom Gibson wrote: > > > >>I've noticed that all of the old prop airliners (from the DC-4 through > >>at least the Electra) have no passenger windows exactly even with the > >>geometrical plane of the props. Was this a CAA requirement for > >>certification? I assume it was to avoid passenger injury if a prop let > >>go; is this correct? > > > >Whether of not the window is there would make no difference if a blade > >departed. > > Absolutely. > > Probably more to do with shedding ice. Our aeroplanes all have dents in > line with the blade disc, in spite of the fact that the skin is > thickened at that point. The deHavilland Dash 8 turboprop has a composite (kevlar and honeycomb if I recall correctly) protection layer for ice shedding. There are still windows roughly in line with the blade, but they are so thick now I don't think they have a great problem. Ice impacts sure do wake up a dozing passenger! Dave From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:36 From: Tom Gibson Subject: Re: Props vs Fuselage Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: San Diego State University Thanks for all your answers; they make a lot of sense. The window would indeed get messed up easily from the stuff the prop throws around. -- Tom Gibson Classic Airliner Page: http://members.aol.com/TGFltsim/ AlcoHauler Locomotive Page: http://members.aol.com/AlcoHauler/home/alcohaul.html Drop by! ___o_o_(")_o_o___ From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:36 From: ho%pasta.dnet.dec.com@mrnews.mro.dec.com () Subject: Re: Props vs Fuselage Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Reply-To: ho@pasta.hlo.dec.com In article , Bill Chivers writes: >In article , s_odle@earthlink.net writes >>>I've noticed that all of the old prop airliners (from the DC-4 through >>>at least the Electra) have no passenger windows exactly even with the >>>geometrical plane of the props. >Probably more to do with shedding ice. Our aeroplanes all have dents in >line with the blade disc, in spite of the fact that the skin is >thickened at that point. It still happens today. One such incident occurred on May 23, 1990, where ice shedding took out the second row window on a Fairchild Metro. It resulted in an AD prohibiting use of the second row until the window could be covered. NTSB Identification SEA90IA085. Operator: Horizon Airlines, Olympia, WA. Sam Ho From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:37 From: rparpatt@uniserve.com (Thundercraft) Subject: Re: BAe-146 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UNIServe Online In article , rickydik@ix.netcom.com says... > >In Alan Sanderson 408 447-3859 > writes: > >>The flight time was about the same for the 146 as the bigger jets, >>as the 146 only climbed to 10,000 ft. where the others go to 30,000. > ^^^^^^^^^^ > >Aha! Maybe that explains why the #4 Lyc engine on a PSA BAe-146 >exploded at 27,000 feet over Fresno. :) Don't planes fly faster at high altitudes??? ...and burn less fuel!!!! From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:37 From: tofly4you@aol.com (Tofly4you) Subject: Re: BA 146 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >There are still lots of what used to be called BAe 146s (now called Avro >RJ70/85/90) still around. ASA out of Atlanta has recently taken >delivery of a whole bunch of RJ85s and is flying them around the >southeast. I've seen them at LAX (TriStar, now defunct) and other >places. There are also loads of them in Europe (Aer Lingus Commuter, >Lufthansa, Jersey European, etc). Atlantic Southeast has 5 of the type with options on 15 more, although I doubt they'll pick it up because of their recent order of 30 Canadari RJs. ASA has not been happy with the engine's performance - big surprise. United Express carrier Air Wisconsin has 15 of the type and Northwest Airlink carrier Mesaba Airlines is taking on 12 Avro RJ85s (2-class, 69 seats) in April. Air Atlantic in Canada has a few. The rest are concentrated in Europe, with some in Australia. Benet Wilson Editor Commuter/Regional Airline News bwilson@phillips.com tofly4you@aol.com "I just wanted to add a little color to the bridge" Gene Roddenberry explaining the Star Trek character Uhura to NBC Executives Fly me to the moon...... From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:37 From: adowney@iol.ie (Ann Downey/Fergus Kavanagh) Subject: Re: BA 146 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ireland On-Line rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) wrote: >In mohica@ix.netcom.com (William >L. Thomas) writes: >> >>I used to see many of the STOL BA 146(?)flying throughout the US. The >>last few years they seem to have disappeared. Where did they go and >>what was the cause of their demise? >You can't make money with them. Engine maintenance is the killer. > First it was a tank engine; > Upgraded to a helicopter engine; > Upgraded to fanjet in BAe-146; > By Lycoming, Textron-Lycoming, Allied-Signal. They are quite popular here in Dublin, so someone must be able to make money out of them. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:37 From: "Bruce Allen" Subject: At the Casablanca Airfield Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netrover This is more of a movie question, but the movie folks don't give a damn about airplanes. Has anyone here ever noticed what model of aircraft that is, shown running up the engines at the end of the movie Casablanca? Is it German or American (a Boeing?). I can't tell because of the mist. Not an Earth-shattering inquiry, but it IS an airliner, and I'm interested. Thanks. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:37 From: SILAGI Subject: Mojave Airliner Storage Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Internet Reply-To: SILAGI@prodigy.net I have friends coming from Austria during the first week in April that want to go to Mojave to photograph some of the airliners in storage there. I have heard that a lot of them have been returned to active service during the past year. Anybody have any info on what is currently being stored at MHV. Also any info on the current status at Kingman AZ would also be appreciated. Thank you From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:38 From: Bob Mann Subject: Boeing NSA Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net Any current information on the status of the Boeing "New Small Aircraft" project? I understood it to be an aircraft targeted at what is today termed the "regional jet" market segment (50-85 seats). -- - Bob Mann R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. 516/944-0900 e-mail: rwmannco@interport.net http://www.interport.net/~rwmannco From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:38 From: gfroseth@aol.com (GFroseth) Subject: BA 777 roll Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com February 14th edition of the Independent newspaper carried what it called an exclusive story concerning a mysterious roll by a British Airways Boeing 777 that forced the aircraft to return to the airport of departure, with the crew having to make a manual landing. BA #133 was on a Heathrow-Jeddah, trip when after about two hours, the aircraft started rolling mysteriously at 37,000 ft. Seems that a passenger noticed the wing flaps moving randomly and notified the cabin crew. In its "mandatory occurrence" report to the Civil Aviation Authority, the airline said a "manual landing [was] carried out...large rudder input was required." According to the Independent story, a team of Boeing engineers examined the aircraft during one week and questioned the crew, but apparently were unable to explain the incident. Some parts were tested by Boeing in Seattle, but nothing was found to explain the wing flaps' random movements. According to the paper, BA has now launched a monitoring program for its 777 fleet. Boeing said it was unable to replicate this unusual situation. On the surface, this sounds like a remake of the 737 situation -- random flight surface movements with no trace of problems afterwards. Anyone hear of other incidents. Also 777-200 on a flight from Hong Kong and Dubai had to divert to Bangkok due to a fire warning. After being checked and cleared for a continuation of the flight, the 777 took off, but had to turn back again for the same reason. On January 2nd, a UA 777 from LHR to EWR that I was on, was four hours late departing LHR, because of a mechanical problem that no one knew how to fix until a Boeing rep. could be located at the factory. Passengers waiting to board were never told the reason for the delay either by the flight deck crew or cabin crew. I finally asked the capt. about it while we were heading for customs at EWR. Although I looked forward to flying the 777, in general I have a "what's the big deal" response to the plane. On our trip to London, leg room in coach seemed sufficient but I felt cramped on the return flight. The seat-back t.v. screen for my wife was not functioning properly on either leg (she never could get a clear picture no matter how much she adjusted the controls). And for someone who is my height (6'2"), viewing the screen with any clarity when your fellow passenger in front decides to recline his/her seat, is a real challenge to the eyes. Just my view and opinion. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:38 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Use of Multiple Jetways Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Reply-To: "P. Wezeman" Before the Boeing 747 was actually put into service, some artist's conceptions of the plane showed it parked between two terminal structures with three or more jetways connecting to it on each side. I think perhaps that passengers were to deplane on one side of the aircraft and passengers for the next flight were to board from the other. It seemed to be thought by some that new passenger handling arrangements would be needed for the efficient operation of such a large airliner. Did anyone ever build such a thing? Would faster turn-arounds be of any benefit to operators of the 747 or the proposed Airbus A3XX or is the capacity of the runways the main bottleneck at airports? Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:39 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: Re: Airliner lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Well I can tell you about the lights on the Saab 340B which I work on. The landing lights are rated at 200 watts and last about 200 hours depending on if the pilots are landing with the auto-pilot are by hand. As far as I can tell there made of glass like the auto headlights, Thiers been times when I've replaced them and found them shatted in the fixture. Hope these helps David Wirth Wings West/American Eagle Airlines From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:39 From: fredch@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Fred Christiansen) Subject: Re: Airliner lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett Packard, Fort Collins, Colorado Jean-Francois Mezei ("[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca) wrote: > Are they designed solely "to be seen" or do they also help pilots see > what is out there ? My guess has been that pilots turn on these lights as a matter of ritual. That is, day or night, you always do the same thing, and then you never have to pause to think whether they go on or not, nor risk forgetting to turn them on when actually needed. -- Fred Christiansen, a Canajan (Eh?) in Colorado. BTW, I do not speak for HP. E-mail: at HP: fredch@fc.hp.com at home: HP-internal Web sites: http://talon.fc.hp.com/~fredch (more personal) http://idc.fc.hp.com/~fredch (Hazard/IOcert) From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:39 From: Mike Mathieu Subject: Help Wanted - 737 Nose Gear Gravel Mod Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A&B Computers, Ottawa, Ont., Canada I'm making a plastic model kit of a 737 and want to include a gravel kit. I've got lots of reference photos, even a maintenance manual, but there's one bit that's poorly shown. On the fuselage belly at the forward end of the nose landing gear bay there is what appears to be a fairing. I've got lots of side views of this fairing but need to know what it looks like from other directions. If somebody could e-mail me a sketch or a description, I would be very grateful. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:39 From: "C.P." Subject: Re: Wing span References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: papaya@worldnet.att.net Wendell Waldron wrote: > > Does anyone know if the Boeing 747-500 series (if they were built) could > fit into current gate configurations? I've been told that the span of > the new wing would only allow for the 747-500 series to land at certain > airports. Thanks in advance. Boeing could always install folding wingtips, which might help a little. The Boeing 777 comes with it as an option, so it probably wouldn't be too hard to do on a 747. At the international terminal at SFO, there is about 20-25 feet between the tips of two 747-400's. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:39 From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) Subject: Re: Old DC-10 attitude problem... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > >In article , rparpatt@uniserve.com >(Thundercraft) wrote: > >> In article , brock@dircon.co.uk says... >> > >> >In the original DC-10's, was there something wrong with their flying >> >attitude? I heard the backs had to be fitted as piano bars as >> >passengers in the last few rows became sick on flights. Thank you. In 16 years of dealing with DAC, I never heard of that. Sure you aren't confusing this with the downstairs pub in the PSA L-1011? >DC-10s fly with a pronounced nose-up attitude that I have been told is >the result of a miscalculation. It was corrected somewhat in the >MD-11, although to me the MD-11 still flies uphill. I believe every airliner flies uphill a few degrees. It was very noticeable on the TW L-10ll I rode last week. I know for a fact that the C-130 vertical gyros are shimmed about 3 degrees so that the horizon appears level at cruise. The DC-10 exceeded its estimates at high mach speeds, apparently due to a slight wing incidence miscalculation. rd From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:40 From: "Walter E. Shepherd" Subject: Re: Old DC-10 attitude problem... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Aerospace Corporation Mary Shafer wrote: > Other comments deleted for brevity > > The 747 does have an unpleasant ride in the very back if the ride > smoothing is turned off, but it's pretty nice otherwise. We went > around the world (Pan Am flt 1) in 1979 or so, sitting in the > next-to-last row in the plane. Even with the turbulence in the > tropics, the ride was quite comfortable. The body bending modes were > pretty easy to see; looking up the aisle it was possible to see the > fuselage flexing. This reminded me of the only time (c 1978?) I saw such body bending... it was a stretched DC-8 (DC-8-63, if I recall correctly) which is probably the best candidate. Threading our way thru 3 tornados into ORD... I was seated in the last row, which was where the fuselage narrowed enough for the usual 3x3 seating to drop to 3x2. My seat extended out into the aisle, which gave me an unwanted, full length and continuous view of the vertical flexing of the fuselage. I recall one or two plastic ceiling panels coming loose and dropping to the floor on that one... it still makes me shy away from ORD to this day. Walt Shepherd. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:40 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Old DC-10 attitude problem... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Craig Welch writes >Eric Young wrote: > >>In the original DC-10's, was there something wrong with their flying >>attitude? I heard the backs had to be fitted as piano bars as >>passengers in the last few rows became sick on flights. Thank you. Dont know about the 10 but the 747 flies a little nose high as it was designed for 10c/gal fuel and a .87 mach cruise. When reality intruded and fuel prices went up in the 70's, flying a bit slower at about .83 saved signifigant fuel but gave a slight nose up attitude. This annoyed the boys and girls who had to push heavy duty free bars uphill. The recently canx. 500/600 series would have had a slower wing which would have removed this problem. -- john r. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:40 From: " Marc SCHAEFFER" Subject: YR-BRC of Tarom Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Recently I made a picture of a TAROM plane, YR-BRC. I think it was a BAC 1-11. The shape of the tail and the engines were like on a DC9. The width of the fuselage was like on a B737. Is this a BAC 1-11 ? When was it build ? Which engines are mounted ? Where did TAROM get this plane from ? Just curious ... Marc SCHAEFFER // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:40 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: YR-BRC of Tarom References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Recently I made a picture of a TAROM plane, YR-BRC. I think it >was a BAC 1-11 ... >Is this a BAC 1-11 ? Yes and no. It's a RomBac One-Eleven 561RC. RomBac bought the rights to the BAC 111 from BAe and built nine of them in Romania between 1982 and 1989, of which this is one. I'm not sure what, if anything, is changed from late BAe-built 111s. (TAROM also has some British-built 111s; all of the RomBac 111s were initially delivered to TAROM though all have been leased out at one time or another.) One US carrier had agreed to acquire some of these planes, though I think the deal subsequently fell through. Was it Kiwi? >When was it build ? It first flew April 26, 1984, and was delivered to TAROM in August if the same year. >Which engines are mounted ? Rolls-Royce Spey 512-14DW, same as on TAROM's BAC 111s. >Where did TAROM get this plane 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 Sun Mar 9 12:39:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:40 From: "Marc SCHAEFFER" Subject: parallel runways on airports Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I read in 'Aero international' that the two parallel runways 25L/07R and 25R/07L at the Frankurt airport (FRA) can't be used at the same time since they are only seperated by 518 meters. - What's the minimum distance where two parallel runways can be used at the same time ? - Are there other restrictions for these type of runways ? - Are the rules the same in Europe and the US ? To all experts out there, I would appreciate any inputs Marc // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:41 From: Holger Neufeldt Subject: DImensions of Modern Airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Alcatel Air Navigation Systems Reply-To: neufeldt@navd.alcatel.de Apologize for probably not posting into the right group! I would like to ask if somebody could give me information about or point me to a location containing the physical dimensions of modern airline aircraft (e.g. B-747, A-320, MD-11). I am especially looking for the roof height (not the fin but the top of the fuselage) when taxiing and the distance of the bottom of the fuselage from he ground when taxiing. Thanks in advance! -- Holger Neufeldt Alcatel Air Navigation Systems GmbH - ATS/E Lorenzstr. 10 D-70435 Stuttgart, Germany or P.O. Box 400749 D-70407 Stuttgart, Germany Tel: +49-711-821-45240 Fax: +49-711-821-43613 From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:41 From: jbacon@telcomplus.com (Jerry D. Bacon) Subject: Re: Manufactures of FMS units in Comercial Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UASC On 01 Mar 97 18:42:16 , s_odle@earthlink.net wrote: >>I would also be interested in a list of manufactures for GA. > >Universal Navigation > whose name is now Universal Avionics. http://www.uasc.com/ I know that Honeywell and Sextant both make FMS for commerical aircraft. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:41 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: Splashproof? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:45 AM 3/1/97, you wrote: >This came up in a discussion I was having with a friend. How >resistant are the electronics in a typical airliner cockpit to >spilled drinks? What sorts of procedural and deesign safeguards >are there? The airplane manufacturer usually specifies the needed level of resistance to cockpit fluids that a requested piece of equipment must have. Coffee, water, and food type liquids are for sure tested on most all of the displays and control panels on the pedestal, and probably in other places also. Don't know what the FAA requires for cert but it probably includes some resistance to normal cockpit environmental fluids. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-9455/4815 From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:41 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: Splashproof? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 03:18 PM 3/2/97, you wrote: >In jokim@athena.mit.edu (John H >Kim) writes: >> >>This came up in a discussion I was having with a friend. How >>resistant are the electronics in a typical airliner cockpit to >>spilled drinks? What sorts of procedural and deesign safeguards >>are there? > >It's always been a problem. Coca Cola is nasty. To dissolve it, you >have to apply more Coca Cola. Waterproofing of the cockpit items from >liquid spills should be, or is a requirement. Little things, like >placing cupholders to the outside, rather than near the center >pedestal, have helped. In the 737, spilled drinks can run downstairs >onto the weather radar transceiver and other stuff, so a drip shield is >placed above them. Actually, we had a lot of problems with spilled beverages in the cockpit which seeped down into the mother of all black boxes...the ground / air sensor card seemed to love to drink this stuff. The floor has since been well sealed and I think the black box was also sealed to avoid future problems in this area. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-9455/4815 From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:42 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Fuel Tank Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) What is the cost/benefit of *ground-based* N2 injection? Top off all tankage after fueling. Yes, as you burn fuel, you end up with air. But, it's cold air, and thus cold Jet-A. When is your threat, after all? Pluses are little added weight and much lower costs to install. -- 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....................................20915-1433 From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:42 From: ee3carb@ee.edinburgh.ac.uk (C.A.R.Beveridge \(Colin\)) Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Electrical Engineering Department, University of Edinburgh In article , Pete Finlay writes: |> In article , "Brian A. Reynolds" |> writes |> |> <> |> |> >It is my understanding that Airbus aircraft do not have the capability |> >to jettison fuel. |> |> I haven't heard that one before. Where did you hear it? It doesn't sound |> correct. I suspect that the A340, for example, being a long-range |> machine, must have a max. landing weight lower than max t.o. weight, and |> they would therefore need to dump fuel if something went wrong after |> take-off. The A340, and presumably the entire family also, do indeed have fuel dumping capabilities. I know this because I read a UK incident report on a Virgin A340 departing London for East Asia which suffered a tail strike and needed to land again. The report mentions that the fuel dump was unsuccessful because of a faulty fuel level indicator - the computer thought the tank was nearly empty and wouldn't allow the crew to dump any fuel! The Airbus engineers talked to the crew on radio for a while and they tried various programming approaches but fuel dumping was just not possible. So the plane had to land at MLW, presumably after an hour of circling enough fuel was gone. But fuel dumping is in the design, and they've changed the logic on the sensor now. -- Colin A R Beveridge Economics Undergraduate & Airline Industry Specialist The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom http://www.ed.ac.uk From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:42 From: "Brian A. Reynolds" Subject: Re: Question: Fuel Dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins Kenny Cromwell wrote: > > In article , > bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) wrote: > > > It is my understanding that Airbus aircraft do not have the capability > > to jettison fuel. > > A330/A340 have the capability to jettison fuel........... My understanding stands corrected :) Thanks for the 'twins might not need it' discussion of Mike Lechnar I can see how I formed a mis-impression. Thanks for the correction. Brian From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:42 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Airliner lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Jean-Francois Mezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> writes >It seems that on a clear day, on can see the lights from an incoming >airliner on approach that is still quite far. > >I assume that those are not your everyday headlight you would put on >your car. What sort of power (watts) do these beasts consume ? How long >would they normally last before they are replaced ? I think most of them are 600 watts quartz units. They do not have a very long life, I think it is around 30 to 40 hours nominal but as they are cheap by aircraft standards no one worries. Its a chore for us mechanics. They are run from 28vac with a local transformer to reduce the 115v supply, so keeping the cables lighter. >Is there a special material/glass used to allow it to operate in extreme >conditions and most importantly, fairly rapidly changing temperatures >without cracking/failing ? The lamp is mounted within a robust sealed beam unit and that makes them tough. >Are they designed solely "to be seen" or do they also help pilots see >what is out there ? Prime function is to see, however they are used on approach a lot to signify on finals. Its very dramatic at night going through patchy cloud with them on, great white ghosts flit past and somtimes rear up and slam into you at speed. Its pretty well the only way you can get an impression of speed in an airliner. -- john r. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:43 From: "john r." Subject: Re: 777 Tail wag fix References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Paul Kearney writes >roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) wrote: >: >Does anyone know what Boeing ever did to fix the tail wag problem with >: >the 777? >: A modal suppression, or high-rate damper system, similar to that >: fitted to the 757, 767 and 747, was fitted from September to correct >: yaw oscillation which occurred after the 777 encountered turbulence. Boeing never managed to fix tail wag on the 747. The MSAS system on the 200s never worked correctly and was removed. Just try a long hop in the last two rows in E zone, right down the back in the bear pit! -- _J_O_H_N____R_E_L_P_H____________ john@guava.demon.co.uk Teddington, Middlesex in Cold Old England. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:43 From: "V. Pance" Subject: Re: EMB145 Experiences References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sympatico Jorg, I've always been extremely impressed with the CRJ. It's quieter than a 757 inside, and seems to have the same speed as any other airplane flying. Incidentaly, that fly-off between the EMB145 and the CRJ used a ComAir RJ. That's the Series 100.. it has a more fuel efficient sister, the Series 200... I heard that the EMB145 is still that Embraer 3 abreast seating arrangment. I can't stand that. I've been on TOO many 120's in the past. I guess that's another nice feature of the CRJ, 4 abreast. I've taken ComAir at least a hundred times in the past year and have run into a mechanical delay once. I guess that says something for either ComAir's maintenance, or for the aircraft. Best Regards, Vestan. From kls Sun Mar 9 12:39:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Mar 97 12:39:43 From: f1mita@uta.fi (Mika Tamminiemi) Subject: SF-340 and ATR-72 speeds? References: <5d4pum$jfn@cc.tut.fi> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tampere University of Technology Hi fellas, could anyone tell me a typical - climb speed - holding speed - Vref / approach / threshold speed for SF-340 and ATR-72 aircraft? Cruise is presumably at about 270 kts. Is this IAS or nil wind GS? I'd love to fly SERIOUS IFR with my PC based simulator, so I'd appreciate the real thing, not vague 1.3 x stall stuff. Thanks guys! From news Sun Mar 2 22:58:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Fuel Tank Safety Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom10.netcom.com Organization: The University of Iowa Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 04:40:46 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu The current Aviation Week has an article on various proposals to prevent the possible explosion of airliner fuel tanks. They authorities are at the point of talking to hardware makers. To summarize: Foam filling has the advantage of no moving parts or sensors. It is effective at suppressing explosions if a fuel tank is hit repeatedly by cannon fire. Weight for a 747 is said to be between 1,200-1,400 lb. with about 1-2% reduction in fuel capacity. Some say the foam tends to trap debris from the fuel, but the makers say that's not necessarily a bad thing as it's better to have the debris trapped in the foam than going through the engine. The U.S. Air Force has had extensive and satisfactory experience with foam over the last twenty years. [Moderator's note: The foam deteriorates and has to be completely replaced fairly often, particularly compared to the lifespan of the average airline. As it deteriorates, it tends to clog the fuel pumps. Also, the military uses it in part for its ability to damp out fuel sloshing during maneuvering that is well outside the envelope of most airliners, which is why they're willing to put up with its short lifetime. MFS] The other approach is nitrogen blanketing. The only state of the art system of this sort in use is on the C-17. It weighs 2,000 lb., occupies 80 cubic feet, and costs 2 million. It was developed by Mcdonnell-Douglas for an Air Force requirement, and filters the oxygen out of bleed air from the engines. It is new, but an earlier system using liquid nitrogen has worked well on the C-5. The total buy of C-17s is pretty small compared to the number of airliners. Would the cost come down much for these systems if more were built? [Moderator's note: Even if the price did come down, a ton is a lot of weight to carry in an industry that switched from glass to plastic for the liquor bottles to save a few bucks per flight. Also, the Blackbird has been using N2 pressurization since the plane's inception, as the fuel gets sufficiently warm that even JP-8 vaporizes. The SR-71 carries LN2 in pressurized tanks and can't launch for a hot flight without it. Thus, this would add yet another cluster of items to the MEL, as well as more weight. Fuel explosions are sufficient more rare than failed LN2 sensors that the cost of acquiring, maintaining, and carrying such systems may not be worth the reduced risk. The value of a saved life is not infinite. MFS] The article implies that some in the NTSB are skeptical about being able to eliminate all possibility of an ignition source inside a fuel tank. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From news Sun Mar 2 22:58:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.simulation,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: beyond@zeta.org.au (Ted Landy) Subject: Re: B747SP simulators/training Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom10.netcom.com Organization: Kralizec Dialup Internet Sydney, http://www.zeta.org.au/ Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 04:30:46 GMT Approved: aero-sim@wilbur.pr.erau.edu maclure@cvsrf1.arc.nasa.gov (MacLure) wrote: >I've been asked a question regarding the SP ( short fuselage >long-range ) 747 variant. > >I don't believe any simulators were ever built for this type >which leads to the question: "How was training done?" > The airline I work for has two 747 SPs. All of our training is done on 747 200/300 simulators as It is a common type rating. Significant differences are limiting Weights and flap limiting speeds due to the SP having a 100 series wing. Also the A/C is considered more s