From news Wed Apr 2 20:14:41 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!144.212.100.12!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: Joseph Edward Nemec <"nemecj"@mit.edu (IHTFP!!!)> Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal Date: 02 Apr 1997 15:30:16 -0500 Organization: Masschusetts Institute of Technology Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5hufks$cgd@kragar.kei.com> References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> <5gs6cu$kqb@kragar.kei.com> <5h6hrn$6sa@kragar.kei.com> Stephen D. Todd wrote: > On countless occasions I've heard the 777 referred to as the Trouble-7. > Rumour has it that UA experiences frequent mech delays. Althought the > M11 seems to go mech in "spurts" ie: last week of every month... or > something to that effect. That's strange, because even United's 777 have had an operational record that is better than any other airplane in service. BA has had trouble with the 777 IGWs engines, but that's GE, not Boeing. From news Thu Apr 3 22:20:16 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!204.127.130.5!worldnet.att.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news2.acs.oakland.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Delta's engine selections Date: 3 Apr 1997 19:57:36 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5i123g$o3d@chronicle.concentric.net> Delta has just announced its engine selections for the B767 and the B777. For the B767, Delta reverts back to the CF6 engine! Currently, the CF6-80A engine on Delta's GE-powered B767s is an older generation CF6. Delta also has many PW4060-powered B767-300ERs in its fleet. For Delta's newly ordered B767s, the CF6-80C2B6/B7 have been selected. Delta also has options on ten B777-200s. If it chooses to convert these options, Rolls-Royce's Trent 892 will be used! Obviously, Delta will use the B777 for long range operations. To me, this is a big surprise. This means, other than a few B757s, P&W is practically shut out of Delta's deal. (The B737 is exclusively powered by the CFM56 engine.) It looks like P&W may also be shut out from the AA deal. I doubt AA will go with P&W for the B777 powerplant, but let's wait and see. Twenty some years ago, P&W had the total domination of the engine market. Now, it looks like that P&W may have a hard time holding onto its No. 2 position! From news Fri Apr 4 20:31:19 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!204.127.130.5!worldnet.att.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: "Gary Welch" Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal Date: 04 Apr 1997 13:24:25 -0500 Organization: Compaq Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5i3h0s$jdo@kragar.kei.com> References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> <5gs6cu$kqb@kragar.kei.com> <5h6hrn$6sa@kragar.kei.com> <5hufks$cgd@kragar.kei.com> Joseph Edward Nemec <"nemecj"@mit.edu (IHTFP!!!)> wrote in article <5hufks$cgd@kragar.kei.com>... > Stephen D. Todd wrote: > > On countless occasions I've heard the 777 referred to as the Trouble-7. > > Rumour has it that UA experiences frequent mech delays. Althought the > > M11 seems to go mech in "spurts" ie: last week of every month... or > > something to that effect. > That's strange, because even United's 777 have had an operational > record that is better than any other airplane in service. BA has had > trouble with the 777 IGWs engines, but that's GE, not Boeing. An ad for the GE90 on the inside cover of the March 24, 1997 Aviation Week & Space Technology claims a 99.97% dispatch reliability rate and no in-flight disruptions in 12,000 departures. They quote BA as saying "It has been the smoothest introduction we have ever had with a new aircraft and engine." From news Fri Apr 4 21:18:05 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: "Stephen D. Todd" Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal Date: 04 Apr 1997 14:01:42 -0500 Organization: Sympatico Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5i3j6p$jdo@kragar.kei.com> References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> <5gs6cu$kqb@kragar.kei.com> <5h6hrn$6sa@kragar.kei.com> <5hufks$cgd@kragar.kei.com> Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: > Stephen D. Todd wrote: > > On countless occasions I've heard the 777 referred to as the Trouble-7. > > Rumour has it that UA experiences frequent mech delays. Althought the > > M11 seems to go mech in "spurts" ie: last week of every month... or > > something to that effect. > That's strange, because even United's 777 have had an operational > record that is better than any other airplane in service. BA has had > trouble with the 777 IGWs engines, but that's GE, not Boeing. Perhaps someone else could help us out here, but I know that at least a year ago United wrote what was considered to be a "stinging" letter to Boeing regarding the operational reliability of the aircraft. Things may have changed since then, I don't know. I know that initially UA was extremely pleased with the aircraft, complimenting it is as the most reliable (new) aircraft they had ever operated (during it's integration into the fleet). -- Best Regards, Steve. From news Fri Apr 4 21:18:05 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!144.212.100.12!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: "J. Heilig" Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal Date: 04 Apr 1997 14:06:28 -0500 Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5i3jfn$jdo@kragar.kei.com> References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> <5gs6cu$kqb@kragar.kei.com> <5h6hrn$6sa@kragar.kei.com> <5hufks$cgd@kragar.kei.com> Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: > Stephen D. Todd wrote: > > On countless occasions I've heard the 777 referred to as the Trouble-7. > > Rumour has it that UA experiences frequent mech delays. Althought the > > M11 seems to go mech in "spurts" ie: last week of every month... or > > something to that effect. > That's strange, because even United's 777 have had an operational > record that is better than any other airplane in service. BA has had > trouble with the 777 IGWs engines, but that's GE, not Boeing. Thank you for a voice of reason. What most people seem to lack is a sense of perspective. Sure, the 777 has had problems, but the fact is, its in service reliability rate is higher than any other aircraft in history (at this stage of its life). A friend who used to work in safety engineering at GE's engine division told me she'd never step foot on a GE90 powered aircraft, knowing what she knew about the program. The results seem to be what we're seeing with BA's problems right now. I've just visited with the director of maintenance for Japan Air Systems at Haneda, and they're extremely pleased with their 777/PW combination. With over 400 hours of pilot training time on its log book, their first 777-200 (the wraparound rainbow) has achieved some impressive numbers. It was placed into revenue service on 4/1/97 with great fanfare. Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:24 From: jak1959@aol.com (JAK1959) Subject: Airbus Prices Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Hello, I am trying to find a list with Airbus aircraft prices, similar to the Boeing list that is available from http://www.boeing.com. I have gone to the Airbus website, however, there is no such listing of prices. Does anyone know any www sites that have price estimates for new Airbus aircraft? Thank you in advance for your assistance. JAK1959@AOL.COM Jim Keane From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:24 From: "Marc SCHAEFFER" Subject: Mid-air collision over Charki Dadri Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Are there already any conclusions of the 12-Nov-96 Mid-air collision between the Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 747-168B and the Air Kazakstan Ilyushin 76TD over Charki Dadri(India) ? Marc SCHAEFFER, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:25 From: "McElravy" Subject: DC-9 hole Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On the last discussion of "stupid DC-9 tricks" (we were picking on Air Canada I believe) someone asked what the hole in the base of the fin was for. The question was never answered and I forgot on it until I had occasion to fly on a few (NW) over Easter. As I was sitting in the gate area I noticed the hole and remembered the discussion. Anybody? Evan McElravy cpa1@Penn.com AIRLINER PHOTO INDEX: http://users.penn.com/~cpa1/gallery.htm From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:25 From: "L.K. Wong" Subject: MAS 777 set 3 world records Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nasionet In conjuction with Malaysian Airline's 50th anniversary celebrations, their first 777-200-IGW nicked name 'Super Ranger' set the following civilian aircraft world record on 2nd. and 3rd. April 1997; Flying around the world in 41 hours and 59 minutes. Longest non-stop flight and fastest non-stop speed; 20044km from Kuala Lumpur to Seattle at an average speed of 889kph. L.K. Wong From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:25 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Right before last year's Farnborough Air Show, Boeing appeared to be ready to launch the B747-500X/600X. However, it did not happen. Since then, Boeing has shifted its efforts towards the B767 and B777 programs. With Delta's deal, it's only a formality to get the Board's approval to launch the B767-400. This year, it's likely that Boeing may launch the B777-200X (~300 seats, ~8,500 nm) and -300X (~375 seats, ~6,500 nm) at the Paris Air Show. Airbus is also ready to counter Boeing's new additions with the A340-500X (~310 seats, ~8,500 nm) and -600X (~380 seats, ~7,400nm). GE has already signed an MoU with Boeing to offer the 100-102K-lb-thrust GE90-100B/102B for the new B777 derivatives. P&W is reluctant to offer anything beyond the 98K-lb-thrust PW4098. It is not clear whether the PW4098 is adequate for the -200X and -300X or not. R-R has yet to announce a firm plan for the 100K engine (Trent 8100), but some of its current B777 customers (Singapore, Malaysia and Emirates in particular) have shown the most interest in the new B777 derivatives. In fact, Malaysia has already announced its intent to buy up to 15 B777-200Xs. For the new Airbus planes, no powerplants have been selected. GE withdrew from its exclusive deal on the A340 with Airbus, because GE was not able to convince Airbus to share some of its engine development cost. (Interestingly, it's the other way around with the next-generation B737. In the B737 case, GE/CFMI actually shares the development cost with Boeing to remain as the sole engine vendor.) At this time, the front-runner for the A340-500X/600X appears to be R-R's Trent 700-based derivative in which France's SNECMA may take an interest. Also, according to AW&ST, P&W may offer the PW4158 for the new Airbus derivatives. The A340-600X will compete directly with the B747-400 rather than the B777-300X. The -600X will be able to fly a tad farther than the B747-400 but with a slightly smaller capacity. I infer from the recent AW&ST article that the DOC (direct operating cost) of the A340-600X with current-generation engines will not be significantly lower than that of the B747-400 unless the plane cruises at a lower Mach number. IMHO, the A340-600X is not an attractive alternative for airlines. Many airlines, especially those in East Asia, have been stuck with the long-range B747 for regional flights (such as Tokyo-Seoul, Taipei-Hong Kong, Singapore-Hong Kong, etc.) because the B747 is the only high-capacity plane available. However, with the baseline B777-300, airlines no longer need the four-engine 747 for regional services. Furthermore, with dedicated regional aircraft like the B777-300, operators can configure their aircraft accordingly. Thus, a B777-300 with regional seating configuration means more seats (hence, more revenue) than a B747-400 with long-haul configuration. If the B777-300X is launched, the new aircraft can be used to replace the B747 on routes like London-San Francisco, Tokyo-Sydney, etc. At this time, I simply can't see the A340-600X take any significant market share away from Boeing because most of the B747-400s are still relatively new. With nearly 200 B747-400s still on order, the Boeing Jumbo line is still very strong. The slight range advantage that the A340-600X has over the B747-400, Boeing seems to be ready to answer it with a proposed B747-400IGW which will have even longer range capability than Airbus's offer. If Airbus does go with the Trent 700-based engine for the new A340 derivatives, then it will make more sense for airlines such as Cathay Pacific which also operates Trent 700-powered A330. I won't be surprised if Cathay is among the launch customers for the A340-500X. (However, I can't see Cathay ordering the A340-600X.) Whether the A340-500X/-600X will be a success or not, Airbus inevitably has to spend a lot more money on the new projects than Boeing has to on the B777-200X/-300X, because a new wing is needed for the new A340. More importantly, even with the -600X, Airbus still doesn't have an answer for the baseline B777-300 and the proposed -300X. (Airbus had previously studied the A330-400X and A340-400X, but airlines weren't interested in these models.) Personally, I think the 777-300 models will be the more successful line of the B777 family, just like the 767-300 is the more successful line of the B767 family. And it seems Airbus may totally miss out the B777-300 market sector. I can't really see how the A340-500X/600X can be a successful program. Perhaps that's why GE was not interested in the exclusive engine deal. The B777-200X/A340-500X market is probably not that big. Thus, my guess is that Airbus would have to rely more on the -600X sales than the -500X. However, I doubt the A340-600X has enough technical and financial merits to set itself apart from the, albeit 30-year old, B747. Well, with the A340-600, Lufthansa will be a step closer to having an all-Airbus fleet. ;-) From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:25 From: jr747@aol.com (JR747) Subject: Number of UA Boeing 777's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I was curious to know how many Boeing 777's that United Airlines has in it's fleet at this time. I know that their total number ordered was 36. Does anyone know? JR747 From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:25 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Number of UA Boeing 777's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I was curious to know how many Boeing 777's that United Airlines has in >it's fleet at this time. I know that their total number ordered was 36. The original order was for only 34, plus 34 options, though two of the options have been exercised to bring the total orders to 36. The first 16 are A-market 777-200s, all of which have been delivered. The other 18 orders are for the 777-200 IGW model; the third of these arrived just last Friday, bringing UA's 777 fleet to 19 aircraft. -- 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 Apr 9 03:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:25 From: jeffdgry@aol.com (JeffDGry) Subject: Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com If the 747-100 were unsafe, the NTSB and FAA would have grounded them a long time ago. In regards to TWA, they have one of the safest records on record, (not counting all the bombs and bullets form the Mideast). Even though TWA has been in the red for years, it is one airline that I would walk on and fly without any second thoughts. Now if the Lawyers would quit trying to put TWA in a grave and let the NTSB do there jobs the dead people's family will get the answers they need. If the Lawyers want to help, put them in a dive suit and let them go down and look for the still missing parts or let them help put back together the 747 that the NTSB is doing. One last thought... do the familys know that they will most likely see very little of what ever the lawyer do bring in on this law suit... It will most likely take three to four years, and with there stuipd fees, well let's just say that they will be only the rich ones. Answer to your question.... No, 747-100's are not too old to keep flying if they are maintained. Mahalo. From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:25 From: no@junk.mail (Mike Neus) Subject: Northwest Worldplane Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Instruments Does anybody have, or know of a URL that shows, a picture of Northwest's 'Worldplane'? If your not familiar with it, its a 747-400 decorated with children's artwork to celebrate Northwest's 50th aniversary of service in the Pacific. You'd think there would be a picture at the Northwest web site, but...NOT! -- Because the junk mailers of the world think my address is their play thing, my e-mail address will not be revealed. Thank the junk mailers for ruining the internet. From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:26 From: craig@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch) Subject: Re: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CW&A Pte. Ltd., Singapore Sounds like pretty normal ATC to me. Cleared to (say) 8,000 ft, got there, for whatever reason (traffic, business), no further clearance for a minute or so; so throttle back, and *stay* at 8,000 ft. Cheers, Craig Arman VOSKANIAN wrote: > > Last week a friend of mine has taken an Airbus A319 flight on Air > France Europe (formerly Air Inter) domestic route. Few minutes after > take off, the crew slowed down the engines power to idle for few > seconds. Then set it to normal climbing thrust level. > On the return flight on the same type (A319) there was the same > event. This time, before it happened, the captain announced it, > saying don't worry, "it is normal". From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:26 From: tombros@ifi.unizh.ch (Dimitrios Tombros) Subject: Re: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Zurich In article , Robert Kochersberger writes: > FWIW, I rode in the cockpit of a Swissair A319 earlier this month > from Zurich to Paris, and there was no such reduction of power. Takeoff > and climb to FL290 were done in what I thought was the "normal" way--high > power until reduction for cruise. > How did you manage to ride in the cockpit of a Swissair aircraft for t/o. I have been flying Swissair for about 12 years every other month and I never had the chance to be there during an interesting flight procedure, although I have asked (always unsuccesfully) to be in the cockpit for the landing. By the way I have been in the cockpit for landing in Olympic airways. On a more general note: what is the situation about this on different airlines. I know it is officially (ICAO ?) not permitted, but would be interested on experience by others in the newsgroup. D. Tombros. From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:26 From: Jill Subject: Re: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Open Text/Web Networks Jared Nedzel wrote: > Arman VOSKANIAN wrote: > > Last week a friend of mine has taken an Airbus A319 flight on Air > > France Europe (formerly Air Inter) domestic route. Few minutes after > > take off, the crew slowed down the engines power to idle for few > > seconds. Then set it to normal climbing thrust level. > > On the return flight on the same type (A319) there was the same > > event. This time, before it happened, the captain announced it, > > saying don't worry, "it is normal". > > It sounds like normal noise abatement procedures. Also, I doubt > that the engines were reduced all the way to idle. My experience is that cutting back on engine power just after take-off is fairly normal, especially in cities where residents near airports have objected to the noise levels. Once these areas have been passed, the engine power is increased again. I think the arrangements vary from city to city. Also, in bad weather some pilots will ignore this and not reduce power. Jill From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:26 From: Jean-Pierre Laliberte Subject: Quality assurance ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TotalNet Inc. I am aircraft maintenance engineer for a major company and we are studying the possibility of going to quality assurance instead of quality control . Anyone can give me info. of how quality assurance is accepted, how it was implemented, is it good or bad ???? thanks for the info. J.P. From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:26 From: ei7gm@iol.ie (Paul Kearney) Subject: Re: BAe-146 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ireland On-Line Reply-To: ei7gm@iol.ie rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick) wrote: : Aha! Maybe that explains why the #4 Lyc engine on a PSA BAe-146 : exploded at 27,000 feet over Fresno. :) The engines on a 146 arent as sturdy as those on a larger aircraft. Some airlines who use 146 aircraft will push the engines to their limits in order to 'chase' the larger jets so that flight-times appear to be similar for the public who will chose the fatser airline between point-a >> point-b. From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:26 From: Joel Grasmeyer Subject: Fuel data and specific fuel consumption Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I am looking for some information on the fuel used in large commercial transports such as the 777 and 747. What fuel or fuels are typically used, and what is the density and the current price? Dan Raymer's book provides some data, but only for aviation gasoline, JP-4, JP-5, and JP-8. Also, what is the specific fuel consumption of a 747 and/or 777? Thanks, -- Joel Grasmeyer, Graduate Research Assistant Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech grasmeye@apollo.aoe.vt.edu http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~grasmeye From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:26 From: euclid1@juno.com (Ptolomy) Subject: Re: 747 wing stress test: This can't be true can it? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom "Hans Jakobsson" wrote: >I just received a question regarding stress tests on 747s. >Quote: >"Is it true that a 747's wings were pulled upwards until both >wing tips touched. (In some sort of stress test)." >End of quote. >I know that they do all sorts of stress tests but this can hardly be true, >can it? My reference archives don't mention this at all. Sure, the wings >can withstand some stress but this is a bit too heavy, I think. >Could any testing experts please comment on this? I recently saw a series on the development of the B777, and they mentioned the B747 wing loading stress tests. They showed that the 747 wings were deflected up in excess of 25 feet before the spar gave way in an explosive display. In the particular video clip they aired, the wingtips came no where near touching.......until after the spar failed, that is : after that point, I imagine that you could have folded the wings over the fusilage if you so desired! Happy Easter and best regards, JCD. From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:26 From: "Ol Mo Hubbard" Subject: Re: 747 wing stress test: This can't be true can it? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ConfrontingTheCupboard Boeing produced a fascinating if somewhat self-serving documentary on the birth of the 747. It has aired on the Discovery channel numerous times. In one segment they actually show the wing stress-to-break test. If I remember correctly the wing-tip traveled 57 feet up/center before the wing failed. And then- it was spectacular. Even the narrator, who was the VP/GM of the 747 project, commented on the thunderous explosion when it let go. If you (or your flying club) contact Boeing I wouldn't be surprised if they would happily send you a copy of the documentary. (They also did one on the 777) From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:26 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: 747 wing stress test: This can't be true can it? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Hans Jakobsson wrote: > > I just received a question regarding stress tests on 747s. > > Quote: > > "Is it true that a 747's wings were pulled upwards until both > wing tips touched. (In some sort of stress test)." > > End of quote. > > I know that they do all sorts of stress tests but this can hardly be true, > can it? My reference archives don't mention this at all. Sure, the wings > can withstand some stress but this is a bit too heavy, I think. > > Could any testing experts please comment on this? I'm not an expert, but no, it's not true. I've seen the film of the ultimate load testing on the original 747 wing, and it was far from touching wingtips when the spar broke. It *was* flexed beyond belief, but it most certainly wasn't a candidate for aircraft carrier stowage. Jennings From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:26 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 747 wing stress test: This can't be true can it? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "Hans Jakobsson" wrote: > I just received a question regarding stress tests on 747s. > > Quote: > > "Is it true that a 747's wings were pulled upwards until both > wing tips touched. (In some sort of stress test)." > > End of quote. > > I know that they do all sorts of stress tests but this can hardly be true, > can it? My reference archives don't mention this at all. Sure, the wings > can withstand some stress but this is a bit too heavy, I think. The statement you read is not correct. The wings cannot be pulled up until they touch. We have film of the 747 wing-to-ultimate-load test in our archives here at Boeing (and all the other planes, too- B-52, 727, 757, 767 (the fuselage broke before the wings on that one) and the 777. I believe the 747's wingtips were pulled up to about 16 feet above their normal no-load position before they broke. In the case of the 747, this test showed that the wings were far stronger than they needed to be, so the engineers were able to go back in and remove some unecessary structure and/or reduce some metal thickness. There was no compromise in strength, and the plane became lighter which meant it's payload went up. The primary value of these wing tests is to prove that the wings are as strong as our engineers and computers say they are, and to provide data which will help us plan derivatives of the airplane down the road. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:27 From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: 747 wing stress test: This can't be true can it? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Your Organization >I just received a question regarding stress tests on 747s. > >"Is it true that a 747's wings were pulled upwards until both >wing tips touched. (In some sort of stress test)." >I know that they do all sorts of stress tests but this can hardly be true, >can it? My reference archives don't mention this at all. Sure, the wings >can withstand some stress but this is a bit too heavy, I think. No, the wings are not static tested until the tips touched. I do not know the deflection on the 747 static tests. The B-52 wing tip deflections were on the order of 30 some feet of total deflection if I remember correctly. We recently static tested the wing of the Citation Excel at Cessna and the deflection at maximum ultimate load was 32 inches. From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:27 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Stephen D. Todd wrote: > -- > PS: I'm going to miss the L-1011's. Me too. And I'll sorely miss the 727's. But BOTH types can retire with the satisfaction of a job VERY WELL DONE. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:27 From: Chuck Till Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> <5h6kdu$6sa@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Steve Lacker wrote: > Uncomfortable? Maybe its just a matter of opinion, but in my view the > BIGGEST offender in the "long-haul-small-plane trend" has got to be the > MD-80/90. I'll gladly take the extra head, hip, shoulder, and luggage > space of a 737 over the extra-narrow MD 80/90 any day... On the other hand, the MD-80/90 has two advantages. First, the probability of getting the dreaded "middle seat" (that is, not an aisle or window) is 20% on a full MD-80/90 and 33% on a full 727/737/757. Second, the overhead bins tend to fill up less quickly on a full MD-80/90 because there are only 5 passengers putting stuff into them in a given row. The size of the overhead bins varies greatly from aircraft to aircraft; I have seen some MD-80/90 with bins larger than some 727 and 737. The storage space under the seats also varies greatly from aircraft to aircraft depending on the type of seat mounts. Again, it's better on some MD-80/90 than on some 727 and 737. I have never measured the seat widths of MD-80/90 vs 727/737/757, but in coach I don't think there is much difference. Fuselage curvature is more noticeable in a window seat on an MD-80/90, granted, but it's not as bad as a Fokker or one of the new regional jets. From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:27 From: carrog Subject: Re: Delta's engine selections References: <5i123g$o3d@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: carrog H Andrew Chuang wrote: > > Delta has just announced its engine selections for the B767 and the B777. . This means, other than a few B757s, P&W is > practically shut out of Delta's deal. (The B737 is exclusively powered > by the CFM56 engine.) It looks like P&W may also be shut out from the AA > deal. I doubt AA will go with P&W for the B777 powerplant, but let's wait > and see. Twenty some years ago, P&W had the total domination of the > engine market. Now, it looks like that P&W may have a hard time holding > onto its No. 2 position! I find this rather odd! Pratt & Whitney engines have powered more passenger miles than any other source. Their contribution to civil aviation development is unsurpassed, with advanced design that other manufactures were only too pleased to follow. Perhaps their commitment to standards, rather to a price, has some bearing on the matter; since deregulation, and the apparent inability of the FAA to stop the increasing couterfeiting of aircraft spares. From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:27 From: nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner) Subject: Douglas' MD-87 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Thought some of you may be interested to know that the MD-87 that Douglas Aircraft has been using for flight testing for many years (ship number 1326) will be flown from Long Beach to Kingman, AZ, tomorrow (Monday, April 7) to be parted out. Neil - nw@ix.netcom.com From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:27 From: Ken Madden Subject: TWA 800 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of North Texas Regarding TWA Flight 800: Some fuel overflow out the vent is normal when the tanks are full, even if the only cause is fuel expansion due to heating (while sitting on the ground). On its B-727s (at least) TWA ordered a device called "Surge Tank Protection" (STP) which uses a light detector in the surge tank to instantaneously flood the surge tank with an inerting substance should a static discharge (read lightning) enter the tank through the vents in the wingtips. In order for kerosene (Jet A) to ignite, the fuel must be heated substantially. Although the center tank of TWA 800 may have been warm on the ground at JFK, it would have cooled substantially in the climb to 13,000 feet due to the pressure decrease inside the tank. In order for me to believe that static electricity or an arcing fuel pump caused the explosion, the aircraft would have to have been fueled with the more volatile Jet B (or JP-4). While not unheard of, this would constitute a non-standard operation, would be done only if Jet A were unavailable, and would need specific approval by management. Ken Madden http://people.unt.edu/~kgm0001/ From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:27 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Boeing 767 & 757 Airfoil Data References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Matt Ford wrote: > I am looking for the following data for the Boeing 767 & 757 wings: > > ***NACA or NASA airfoil number, or a close approximation. > ***Angle of incidince across the wing. The all Boeing airliners since the 727 have airfoils custom designed by Boeing engineers. The 707-100 airfoils are NACA 6X series sections on modified NACA 230 and 60 series camber lines. By the time of the 707-300 these had been seriously butchered by the Yehuda, etc. Boeing does not put their airfoil coordinates or test data in the public domain. However, the wind tunnel test of a 737-200 is reported in NASA TN D-5971, and the report contains airfoil coordinates. Similarly, NASA CR-159093 contains the coordinates of an airfoil that is either that on the outboard wing of the 767 or is closely related to such. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Apr 9 03:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:27 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Can an Airbus 320/321/330/340 perform a controlled glide? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Dave Smith asked on Sun Mar 30 13:52:54 1997:- > With no mechanical backup can an Airbus that has lost the computers, > for whatever reason, be glided to a safe landing? > > Intuitively I assume the case is no, but wouldn't this give people > like the FAA and CAA concern regarding Airworthiness certificates > and the like? In the event of loss of all 5 computers in the Electrical Flight Control System (EFCS) the crew can control pitch by moving the Trimmable Horizontal Stabiliser (THS) using the pitch trim wheels, and yaw (and roll to some extent) by operating the rudder via the pedals. Connection to both of these surfaces is mechanical (although in normal operation, they can also be operated automatically). The crew can also vary the thrust of the engines independently of each other. It is a certification requirement that the aircraft can be landed using this "mechanical back-up" alone. Pilots are trained in its use on a simulator (I think). It has also been done on a test flight (again, I think). There has never been a case of loss of all 5 EFCS boxes during a scheduled flight. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:27 From: g.stoel@lr.tudelft.nl (G. Stoel) Subject: Re: Can an Airbus 320/321/330/340 perform a controlled glide? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology On 30 Mar 97 03:54:26 , Dave Smith wrote: >With no mechanical backup can an Airbus that has lost the computers, >for whatever reason, be glided to a safe landing? As far as I can remember, the chance that all the computers are lost is very improbable (which means the chance is less than 10e-9). This is enough for the authorities. But if you are really interested, I can check it up for you. CU later, Geoffrey Stoel g.stoel@lr.tudelft.nl From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:27 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Curtains vs. plastic eyelids References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Peter Coe wrote: > > "Steven G. Thomson" writes: > >The Viscount did indeed have awesome cabin windows. The BAe Jetstream 31 > >has huge windows for a regional, must be a British tradition! > > Whereas Concorde has windows the size of my palm. Let's blame the French > for that. I suppose we can blame the French... but then we'd also have to credit them for the great windows in the Caravelle. :-) -- 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 Wed Apr 9 03:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:28 From: Tom Keesling Subject: Materials testing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Millennium HealthNet, Raleigh, North Carolina Could anyone point me in the direction for finding materials testing procedures in the aerospace industry? I am particulary interested in 316L stainless, aluminum and titanium. I am in the orthopedic fixator business, and would like to test these devices for cracks. Thanks in advance...Tom From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:28 From: Jan-Erik Andelin Subject: Why do MD80's skid ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland What is the technical/operational reason for so many (old ?) MD80's doing runway skids these days ? -- erkki * * * MD80 International Home Page * * * http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/md80.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- Jan-Erik Andelin * phone +358-19-584 622 Ågatan 63 * e-mail andelin@clinet.fi 06100 Borgå, Finland * WWW http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/ From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:28 From: "Marc SCHAEFFER" Subject: Air Provence Charter from Virgin Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On the 02-Apr I made in FRA a picture of a Virgin (VIR/VS) B737-300, registration F-GRSA. On each side of the fuselage was the following inscription : ‘Air Provence Charter’,followed by the French flag. - Did Air Provence get rid of their Caravelle F-GCVM ? - Did they replace it with this charterted B737 from VS ? I would appreciate any input Marc SCHAEFFER, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:28 From: "Doug Snow" Subject: SFO Airliner Drag Racing (was: parallel runways on airports) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM One thing I love SFO about is my favorite non-contact sport (one hopes anyway), Airliner Drag Racing. The last time I flew from SFO, we were (in a US 733) lined up on 28L, and we had an AA B757 lined up on 28R. Tower mustve cleared us both for departure at the same time, for we accelerated down the runways at the same time. The 757 was off first (go figure), and turned slightly to the right, we were then off and we turned slightly to the left for traffic and departed over the OFFSHORE departure, I think. ----- Douglas Snow (GSH) http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:28 From: "john r." Subject: Relative Engine Power Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence Can anyone give me some approximate guidelines to compare jet engine thrust and rotating shaft power. We were recently looking over The Queen Mary at Long Beach and in the engine room it said that the four turbines produced about 260,000 horse power between them. About as much as a modern Jumbo I said but was greeted with disbelief. Was I that far out ? -- _J_O_H_N____R_E_L_P_H____________ john@guava.demon.co.uk From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:28 From: "Mark E. Ingram" Subject: Re: 42,000 feet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: "Mark E. Ingram" On 30 Mar 1997, BHunnewell wrote: > I've always been told that the big advantage to flying higher in jets > is that the engines get more efficient as it gets colder. Above the > tropopause-the air continues to get thinner but the temp remains > constant, so, there is no real increased efficiency to flying above the > tropopause. I think you are correct as to efficiency, but there are times that I have climbed to FL 450 (45,000') to top weather. An aircraft's capability to go there - and above - can *really* be handy in such situations. Regards, Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Wed Apr 9 03:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:28 From: "Doug Snow" Subject: Re: Boundry layer air. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM For a good basic intro to boundary layer for an operator's point of view, get "Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators.", on page 52. From kls Wed Apr 9 13:26:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 13:26:02 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Delta's engine selections References: <5i123g$o3d@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , carrog wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: >> >> Delta has just announced its engine selections for the B767 and the B777. >. This means, other than a few B757s, P&W is >> practically shut out of Delta's deal. (The B737 is exclusively powered >> by the CFM56 engine.) It looks like P&W may also be shut out from the AA >> deal. I doubt AA will go with P&W for the B777 powerplant, but let's wait >> and see. Twenty some years ago, P&W had the total domination of the >> engine market. Now, it looks like that P&W may have a hard time holding >> onto its No. 2 position! > > I find this rather odd! > Pratt & Whitney engines have powered more passenger miles > than any other source. Their contribution to civil aviation > development is unsurpassed, with advanced design that other > manufactures were only too pleased to follow. P&W had its glory days in the 60s and 70s when it commanded the engine market. Sure, the JT8D is still the most widely flown engine in the world. The JT8D still provides P&W with a lot of revenue through spare-part sales, but it hardly makes a dent in the new engine sales. After Boeing started offering B747 customers with multiple engine options and second-generation B737 with the CFM56, P&W's market share has drastically dropped. It has been in the No. 2 position for a long time. In the past two years, orders for Rolls-Royce engines have been surprising strong, especially in Southeast Asia. If BMW/R-R wins the right to supply the BR715 for the AE100/A318 and R-R becomes the exclusive supplier for the A340-500/600 powerplant, P&W is seriously in danger of falling to the No. 3 position. > Perhaps their commitment to standards, rather to a price, > has some bearing on the matter; That's what McDonnell Douglas used to say. It was reported that many airlines were interested in the MD95, but McD wouldn't agree to the price. And now, look at where McD is. From kls Wed Apr 9 13:26:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 13:26:02 From: M Carling Subject: Re: Number of UA Boeing 777's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch Karl Swartz wrote: > > The original order was for only 34, plus 34 options, though two of the > options have been exercised to bring the total orders to 36. The first > 16 are A-market 777-200s, all of which have been delivered. The other > 18 orders are for the 777-200 IGW model; the third of these arrived > just last Friday, bringing UA's 777 fleet to 19 aircraft. This leaves the question of the two options converted to orders. Has UA chosen what sort of 777 these will be, or has UA yet to decide? M Carling From kls Wed Apr 9 13:26:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 13:26:03 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Number of UA Boeing 777's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> The original order was for only 34, plus 34 options, though two of the >> options have been exercised to bring the total orders to 36. The first >> 16 are A-market 777-200s, all of which have been delivered. The other >> 18 orders are for the 777-200 IGW model; the third of these arrived ** ^^ >> just last Friday, bringing UA's 777 fleet to 19 aircraft. >This leaves the question of the two options converted to orders. Has UA >chosen what sort of 777 these will be, or has UA yet to decide? All of the aircraft on order and not yet delivered -- including the two option conversions -- are for the IGW model. -- 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 Apr 9 13:26:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 13:26:03 From: M Carling Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch H Andrew Chuang wrote: > > The A340-600X will compete directly with the B747-400 rather than the > B777-300X. The -600X will be able to fly a tad farther than the > B747-400 but with a slightly smaller capacity. I infer from the recent > AW&ST article that the DOC (direct operating cost) of the A340-600X with > current-generation engines will not be significantly lower than that of > the B747-400 unless the plane cruises at a lower Mach number. I'm not sure why Andrew thinks that "the A340-600X will compete directly with the B747-400 rather than the B777-300X." The Airbus will be between the two Boeings in size and perhaps about the same range as the 747-400X. I think the A340-600X, if launched, will compete will both the 747-400 and the 777-300X. The operating cost of the A340 at any given cruise speed is difficult to reliably determine prior to development of its wing, which Andrew indicates below will be developed. > IMHO, the A340-600X is not an attractive alternative for airlines. > Many airlines, especially those in East Asia, have been stuck with the > long-range B747 for regional flights (such as Tokyo-Seoul, > Taipei-Hong Kong, Singapore-Hong Kong, etc.) because the B747 is the > only high-capacity plane available. However, with the baseline > B777-300, airlines no longer need the four-engine 747 for regional > services. The 747-400 has significantly greater capacity on regional Asian routes than will the 777-300 unless the 777 is configured with ten across seating in Y (Ick!), as TG has done with their 777-200s. > Furthermore, with dedicated regional aircraft like the > B777-300, operators can configure their aircraft accordingly. Operators are similarly free to configure their 747-400s as they see fit. > Thus, a B777-300 with regional seating configuration means more > seats (hence, more revenue) than a B747-400 with long-haul > configuration. That's comparing apples and oranges. A 747-400 with regional seating e.g. TG's seating configuration, has more seats than a 777-300 with a regional (nine across) seating configuration. At slot limited airports such as NRT, the 747-400 will remain attractive relative to the 777-300. > If the B777-300X is launched, the new aircraft can be used to > replace the B747 on routes like London-San Francisco, > Tokyo-Sydney, etc. UA are already operating the 777-200IGW LHR-SFO. > At this time, I simply can't see the A340-600X take any > significant market share away from Boeing because most > of the B747-400s are still relatively new. Right. I expect the 747-400s to continue serving markets where the 777-300 doesn't have the capacity needed. > The slight range advantage that the A340-600X has over the > B747-400, Boeing seems to be ready to answer it with a proposed > B747-400IGW which will have even longer range capability than > Airbus's offer. Are you talking about the 890,000lb. MGTOW version that Boeing has been promising for some time? > Airbus inevitably has to spend a lot more money on the new > projects than Boeing has to on the B777-200X/-300X, because > a new wing is needed for the new A340. Right, the wing will be expensive. But at least it is a chance for Airbus to correct their mistake in trying to shoehorn the same wing onto the two engine A330 and the four engine A340. > More importantly, even with the -600X, Airbus still doesn't > have an answer for the baseline B777-300 and the proposed -300X. I'm not sure why you disqualify the A340-600X as an answer to the 777-300X. If you just don't think the airlines will buy it, let's let the airlines decide. If you think it can't serve the same market, then please let us know why. > Personally, I think the 777-300 models will be the more > successful line of the B777 family, just like the 767-300 > is the more successful line of the B767 family. And it seems > Airbus may totally miss out the B777-300 market sector. That's possible, but it hasn't happened yet. Boeing may decide to build a 777-400X with another 10 meters added in length. That would still be shorter than the 280 foot maximum length that can turn around between typical airport terminals. The reported 720,000lb. MGTOW of the 777-200X indicates that 777-400X is possible, though it would not be a long-range aircraft. It would be far less expensive to operate than a 747-400 or an A340-600X and would be well suited to regional routes out of NRT or LHR. The biggest problem is that Boeing's new 777 factory was built to assemble aircraft up to 777-300 size. I'm not sure that Boeing could easily build a longer aircraft in that factory. > I can't really see how the A340-500X/600X can be a successful program. > Perhaps that's why GE was not interested in the exclusive engine deal. Probably. > The B777-200X/A340-500X market is probably not that big. I don't know the 777-200X/A340-500X market isn't quite large. The 777-200X might be the plane that fractures the Pacific market the way the 767 did with the Atlantic market. This remains to be seen. M Carling From kls Wed Apr 9 13:26:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 13:26:03 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Furthermore, with dedicated regional aircraft like the >> B777-300, operators can configure their aircraft accordingly. >Operators are similarly free to configure their 747-400s as they see >fit. I think Andrew's point was that they can't afford to dedicate the 747-400s to regional services, and thus aren't free to configure them in an appropriate configuration. >> If the B777-300X is launched, the new aircraft can be used to >> replace the B747 on routes like London-San Francisco, >> Tokyo-Sydney, etc. >UA are already operating the 777-200IGW LHR-SFO. Replacing 767-300(ER)s, not 747s, though if you dig back it used to be one 747-238B, compared to *two* 777-200IGWs starting tomorrow. Assuming UA wanted to maintain capacity and have just one flight, the 777-200 could not replace a 747 on the route. The 777-300X could. >> More importantly, even with the -600X, Airbus still doesn't >> have an answer for the baseline B777-300 and the proposed -300X. >I'm not sure why you disqualify the A340-600X as an answer to the >777-300X. If you just don't think the airlines will buy it, let's let >the airlines decide. If you think it can't serve the same market, then >please let us know why. It seems obvious enough to me that pitching a four-engined plane against a twin is not likely to garner many sales for the A340-600X. The market has already made that abundantly clear, with few carriers swimming against the stream. -- 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 Apr 9 13:26:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 13:26:04 From: swestin@ford.com (Stephen Westin ) Subject: Re: DC-9 hole References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ford Motor Company In article "McElravy" writes: > On the last discussion of "stupid DC-9 tricks" (we were picking on Air > Canada I believe) someone asked what the hole in the base of the fin was > for. The question was never answered and I forgot on it until I had > occasion to fly on a few (NW) over Easter. As I was sitting in the gate > area I noticed the hole and remembered the discussion. An inexpert guess: air intake for the APU. I believe it lives in the tail, as on a 747. -- -Stephen H. Westin swestin@ford.com The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's. From kls Wed Apr 9 13:26:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Apr 97 13:26:04 From: D Snow Subject: Re: DC-9 hole Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 9 Apr 1997, McElravy wrote: > On the last discussion of "stupid DC-9 tricks" (we were picking on Air > Canada I believe) someone asked what the hole in the base of the fin was > for. The question was never answered and I forgot on it until I had > occasion to fly on a few (NW) over Easter. As I was sitting in the gate > area I noticed the hole and remembered the discussion. > I think the hole is an air inlet for the rudder load limiter. I know that is not the official DC9 terminology for the device, but that is what the hole serves, I think. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie (Currently INOP) From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:38 From: Andrew J Braithwaite Subject: Re: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ford Motor Company Dimitrios Tombros wrote: > How did you manage to ride in the cockpit of a Swissair aircraft for t/o. > I have been flying Swissair for about 12 years every other month and I > never had the chance to be there during an interesting flight procedure, > although I have asked (always unsuccesfully) to be in the cockpit for the > landing. By the way I have been in the cockpit for landing in Olympic > airways. > > On a more general note: what is the situation about this on different > airlines. I know it is officially (ICAO ?) not permitted, but would be > interested on experience by others in the newsgroup. It is usually very strict. There are two reasons, first is obvious - the risk of hijack. The second is that an unqualified observer in the cockpit could distract the crew during a critical phase of flight. With U.S. airlines there is absolutely no way that you are allowed in the cockpit. I was working at Delta's Flight Training centre and wanted to ride in an L1011 cockpit to observe the Autoland system. Even the chief L1011 pilot could not authorise a non-cockpit crew member on the Flight Deck during a passenger flight. With the European airlines ( I am not sure of the regulations outside of Europe ) it is at the Captians discretion. However if anything happens, even a minor incident, the Captain would have some very serious explaining to do. So it is extremely unusual for them to allow it. It may be worth asking but don't be insulted when the answer is "No". Hope this helps Andy -- Andrew Braithwaite Email: abraithw@ford.com (Work) Powertrain Control Systems Engineering gf10@dial.pipex.com (Home) Ford Motor Company Tel: +44 (0)1268 404115 The opinions expressed are my own and not those of Ford Motor Company. "Remove the x's in Email address when replying to this message." From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:38 From: Joe Hanser Subject: Re: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sterling Software/CDFS II Jill wrote: > > Jared Nedzel wrote: > > > > It sounds like normal noise abatement procedures. Also, I doubt > > that the engines were reduced all the way to idle. > > My experience is that cutting back on engine power just after take-off > is fairly normal, especially in cities where residents near airports > have objected to the noise levels. Once these areas have been passed, > the engine power is increased again. I think the arrangements vary > from city to city. Also, in bad weather some pilots will ignore this > and not reduce power. Another reason can be ATC altitude holds for conflicting traffic. Deparature control may need to hold a plane at or below an altitude for a short while to avoid conflicts of airspace. The airliner to maintain at or below the assigned altitude and avoid overspeeding in the terminal area will have to throttle back. When the altitude restriction is removed they throttle back up and continue the climb to cruising atlitude. The altitude restriction might even be part of the original IFR release from clearance delivery. i.e. "Climb and maintain at or below 8,000 feet, expect higher with departure". Until departure clears for them a higher altitude they will have to maintain at or below 8,000 feet. Joe hanser From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:39 From: dzul@theos.com (dzul) Subject: Re: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Reply-To: dzul@theos.com In message - tombros@ifi.unizh.ch (Dimitrios Tombros) writes: :> :>In article , :> Robert Kochersberger writes: :> :>> FWIW, I rode in the cockpit of a Swissair A319 earlier this month :>> from Zurich to Paris, and there was no such reduction of power. Takeoff :>> and climb to FL290 were done in what I thought was the "normal" way--high :>> power until reduction for cruise. :> :>On a more general note: what is the situation about this on different :>airlines. I know it is officially (ICAO ?) not permitted, but would be :>interested on experience by others in the newsgroup. most of the airport that i had flown out from used the following noise abatement procedure; climb at V2 +10 kts at 1500 ft AGL, set climb trust at 3000 ft AGL, accelerate and retract flaps on flaps retraction speed. only at London Heatrow do we accelerate at 4000 ft AGL. also, i am flying the B747-400s and not the A319. dzul email: dzul@theos.com webpage : http://theos.com/~dzul From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:39 From: matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) Subject: Re: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. >On a more general note: what is the situation about this on different >airlines. I know it is officially (ICAO ?) not permitted, but would be >interested on experience by others in the newsgroup. Don't think it is an ICAO issue. The rules vary from country to country, and airline to airline. For US flag carriers,the FAA just says NO! However in many circumstances it is permitted at the captain's discretion, although the exact rules vary from carrier to carrier. I've been in the cockpit for takeoff and landing for both BA and QF. Emirates allows visits, but not during takeoff and landings. Also visitors are prohibited when there are less than 2 crew in the cockpit of most airlines. So on a 747-400, or 767, A310 etc, if someone has to go out for a few minutes, you get tossed out as well. I'd add occaisonally the captain doesn't have much discretion. One of the times I was in the cockpit for takeoff, it was because the captain had been told in writing in writing I was going to be there, by the chief pilot. I think he probably could have declined, but probably wouldn't have been a good career move. It was made quite clear however that the Captain was not very happy about my being there. From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:39 From: joliver@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu (James Oliver) Subject: Two DC-10s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: joliver@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu Any help with the histories of two DC-10s we flew this week? They are... SUN COUNTRY N571SC and N572SC Thanks in advance, and clear skies to all Jim OLIVER From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:39 From: joliver@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu (James Oliver) Subject: NWO WorldPlane Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: joliver@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu Does anyone know where I can find out who the crew was for NWO WorldPlane Flight on 12 March 1997, especially the Minneapolis-Tokyo initial segment? WorldPlane celebrates 50 years of service from N.A. to Asia over North Pacific great Circle Route. Happy Birthday, NW(O) Clear skies to all, Jim OLIVER joliver@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:39 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Overheard on channel 9 ... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Recently, on a United flight, I was listening to channel 9 (cockpit communications). An airliner of unknown type was cleared to FL 410. It then requested that it be sent no higher that 390. The controller asked why: "don't you have the performance for 410?" "Yes," came the reply, "but not in the light chop that is reported there." Could someone explain what was going on here? Is FL 410 so close to the service ceiling that a little chop (and presumably some gusts from the rear) are problematic? From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:39 From: "David F. Wagener" Subject: US Airways Fleet Changes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DaNet Design, Ltd. Anyone have any clue when the Fokkers will be sent to Arizona? Also, I understand that the DC-9s will be phased out here soon...so they won't be getting the new pretty colors. :P Will the Airbuses...whenever they come...replace the entire 737 and MD80 fleet then? Kinda dumb if you ask me. I have grown to associate the 737 with USAir...since they fly just about the greatest number of them. If you ask me...the billions to be spent on 400 A-319/320/321 is dumb. Should use the money to pick up next-gen 737s and more long range planes (767s and 777s). Thats my two cents... DFW http://www.danetdesign.com/users/dfw/ From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:39 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , M Carling wrote: > >I'm not sure why Andrew thinks that "the A340-600X will compete directly >with the B747-400 rather than the B777-300X." The Airbus will be between >the two Boeings in size and perhaps about the same range as the >747-400X. I think the A340-600X, if launched, will compete will both the >747-400 and the 777-300X. The A340-600X is practically the same size as the 777-300. The A340-600 is a long-range aircraft, while the baseline 777-300 is a medium-haul aircraft. The range of the 777-300X will probably be 1,000nm shorter than that of the A340-600 (not insignificant). Thus, the A340-600 will compete more directly with the B747-400 than with the B777-300X. As Karl pointed out, A340 is a four-engine plane, and the B777-300 is a twin. For regional operations, twins are a far superior choice; four-engine planes are overkill, irrepective if it's a Boeing or it's an Airbus. >The operating cost of the A340 at any given cruise speed is difficult to >reliably determine prior to development of its wing, which Andrew >indicates below will be developed. They should be ready to finalize the design any time now. Thus, they should have a good idea of the performance of the new wing. At first I thought they would optimize the wing at a speed comparable to that of the B777. Based on AW&ST's report, I doubt this is true. That's why they try to emphasize the speed difference will result in a "few" minutes' differnce in time. Hmmm.... I seem to recall Airbus made a big fuss about the A320's faster speed than B737's. >> Furthermore, with dedicated regional aircraft like the >> B777-300, operators can configure their aircraft accordingly. > >Operators are similarly free to configure their 747-400s as they see >fit. However, most don't. The few that I'm more familiar with, (e.g., Singapore, Malaysia, Cathay, China Airlines, EVA Air) don't have -400s in regional configuration. Some of them do have older versions (such as the -200 and -300) in regional configuration. >That's comparing apples and oranges. A 747-400 with regional seating >e.g. TG's seating configuration, has more seats than a 777-300 with a >regional (nine across) seating configuration. At slot limited airports >such as NRT, the 747-400 will remain attractive relative to the 777-300. Not really. In tri-class configuration, the 777-300 is about 30 seats smaller than the 747-400. NRT will see plenty 777-300s. You seem to have a misconception that the 777-300 is significantly smaller than the 747. Right from the start, Boeing targeted the 747-100/200 replacement market with the B777-300. >> If the B777-300X is launched, the new aircraft can be used to >> replace the B747 on routes like London-San Francisco, >> Tokyo-Sydney, etc. > >UA are already operating the 777-200IGW LHR-SFO. The 777-200 is significantly smaller than the B747-400; it's about 100 seats less. >> More importantly, even with the -600X, Airbus still doesn't >> have an answer for the baseline B777-300 and the proposed -300X. > >I'm not sure why you disqualify the A340-600X as an answer to the >777-300X. If you just don't think the airlines will buy it, let's let >the airlines decide. If you think it can't serve the same market, then >please let us know why. As I have said earlier, a four-engine, long-range aircraft will not be able to compete effectively with a two-engine, medium-range aircraft. Boeing has finally given airlines an efficient, large-capcity aircraft for regional operations. The A340-600 is simply not an ideal aircraft for regional flights, just like the B747-400 is not. Airbus was aware of the B747-100/200 replacement market as early as in 1990. They pitched stretched A330-400/A340-400 to airlines like Cathay Pacific. Unfortunatly for Airbus, they didn't have the right design. Cathay chose the B777-300, and the rest is history. It won't be cheap for Airbus to come up with a competitive A330-400. From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:39 From: matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. >> The slight range advantage that the A340-600X has over the >> B747-400, Boeing seems to be ready to answer it with a proposed >> B747-400IGW which will have even longer range capability than >> Airbus's offer. > >Are you talking about the 890,000lb. MGTOW version that Boeing has been >promising for some time? It has been reported by Avweek that the 747-400IGW is for sale, however frankly it doesn't do a whole lot. The nominal MGTOW for a 747-400 is 875,000 pounds today, typical fuel burn is about 20,000 pounds per hour average, so this only buys about 400 miles in range. I can only think of a few routes it is useful for. From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:40 From: Alan Wong Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM H Andrew Chuang wrote: > IMHO, the A340-600X is not an attractive alternative for airlines. > Many airlines, especially those in East Asia, have been stuck with the > long-range B747 for regional flights (such as Tokyo-Seoul, > Taipei-Hong Kong, Singapore-Hong Kong, etc.) because the B747 is the > only high-capacity plane available. However, with the baseline > B777-300, airlines no longer need the four-engine 747 for regional > services. Furthermore, with dedicated regional aircraft like the > B777-300, operators can configure their aircraft accordingly. Thus, > a B777-300 with regional seating configuration means more seats (hence, > more revenue) than a B747-400 with long-haul configuration. Don't forget that many flights from Europe to Asia arrive in Asia in the morning and don't leave for Europe until very late at night. In between the aircraft (usually a 747-400) can do a regional run or two. Even if it is not the optimised for a regional flight (in that it has seats configured for long-haul operations), the fact that the aircraft is available justifies its use for these regional flights. Older 747s tend to be dedicated regional aircraft in Asia and these are often configured as such. These are the planes that airlines such as Cathay and Singapore are replacing with 777s. > If the > B777-300X is launched, the new aircraft can be used to replace the B747 > on routes like London-San Francisco, Tokyo-Sydney, etc. At this time, I > simply can't see the A340-600X take any significant market share away > from Boeing because most of the B747-400s are still relatively new. With > nearly 200 B747-400s still on order, the Boeing Jumbo line is still very > strong. The slight range advantage that the A340-600X has over the > B747-400, Boeing seems to be ready to answer it with a proposed > B747-400IGW which will have even longer range capability than Airbus's > offer. > I can't really see how the A340-500X/600X can be a successful program. > Perhaps that's why GE was not interested in the exclusive engine deal. > The B777-200X/A340-500X market is probably not that big. Thus, my guess > is that Airbus would have to rely more on the -600X sales than the -500X. > However, I doubt the A340-600X has enough technical and financial merits > to set itself apart from the, albeit 30-year old, B747. Well, with the > A340-600, Lufthansa will be a step closer to having an all-Airbus > fleet. ;-) I too don't think A340-500X/600X will be launched. Anyone who has a need for a 400 seat or long range plane already has 747-400s. They are not likely to change over to A340s unless it offers significantly lower operating costs (which is unlikely for the time being). The extra range of the A340-500X/600X is not that significant. The 747-400 already can fly many of the cities pairs. Longer range aircraft will open up a few more city pairs, but not that many more and certainly not as many as were opened up when the 747-400 was introduced. The A340-500X/600X will thus be attractive only to airlines that don't currently operate 747-400s, but are interested in starting up long range operations. There are very few such airlines and the number of orders they will bring will not be enough for a successful program. From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:40 From: eddy@spam-free.ludd.luth.se Subject: Concorde in BOAC colours? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: remove the "spam-free" to e-mail me Was Concorde ever flown in BOAC colours? Thanks Ed eddy@ludd.luth.se -- "Some wag once said that a million monkeys pounding on a million typewriters would eventually produce Shakespeare: well, the Internet is proof this isn't true." - [unknown] From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:40 From: eddy@spam-free.ludd.luth.se Subject: How often are airliners washed?! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: remove the "spam-free" to e-mail me This might seem an odd question, but I guess the cleaner an aircraft is externally, the faster it flies? How often are airliners cleaned externally? I recently saw a BWIA L1011 at Manchester (UK) that was absolutely filthy. It certainly couldn't have inspired any confidence in the passengers :-) Thanks Ed eddy@ludd.luth.se -- "Some wag once said that a million monkeys pounding on a million typewriters would eventually produce Shakespeare: well, the Internet is proof this isn't true." - [unknown] From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:40 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Why do MD80's skid ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA In article , Jan-Erik Andelin wrote: > What is the technical/operational reason for so many > (old ?) MD80's doing runway skids these days ? I am not sure that this is technically correct, however it is well known amongst maintenance crews that taxi MD80s, the MD80 is notoriously light on it's small nose gear especially with a light fuel load. Additionally due to the geometry of the nose gear only one of those small tires is in contact with the ground in a sharp turn. In fact mechanics can change a nose gear tire without jacking the nose gear, all they have to due is put a turn on the tiller. So add together small footprint in contact with the ground, a light load and slippery runways. There may be other factors, but these are the ones I am aware of. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:40 From: Joseph Edward Nemec <"nemecj"@mit.edu (IHTFP!!!)> Subject: Re: 30-year-old technology References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Masschusetts Institute of Technology H Andrew Chuang wrote: > BTW, I saw an Airbus ad basically claiming the A330-200 is two decades > more advanced than the competition (i.e., the B767-400ER). I guess > marketing people can twist facts any way they want to. I believe the > launch dates of the B767-200 and the A330-300 are about seven or eight > years apart. Ah, but they never explicitly stated that they were talking about the 767-400ER! All they said was "our ageing competitor". I find this typical of Airbus' adds, which seem to border on misrepresentation. From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:40 From: dcoon@ksu.edu (David Alan Coon) Subject: B-777 Double Decker??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kansas State University A few years ago, POPULAR SCIENCE reported that Boeing had plans to stretch the upper deck of the B-747 to the entire length of the aircraft, and it was this, they said, that was to be the B-777. Imagine my spurise when I saw the photos of the first B-777 that was put in service, when it was first introduced a while back, a SINGLE DECKER!!!! MD also had plans for such a "SUPER JUMBO" as I would call it. Whatever happened to the B-777 DOUBLE DECKER????forgive my ignorance (I am a layperson who travels alot by air) is the B-777 200x or 300x the Double Decker Super Jumbo? when will such a plane be put in service? How will a propsed MD-BOEING MERGER affect the MD plans for the double decker....????? Am I correct in my thinking that a B-747-400series has replaced the traditional spiral staircase with a straight one and the cockpit is mostly digital? please respond via e-mail if possible. Thanks. -- Dave Coon http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~dcoon Graduate Student/Teaching Assistant & SASW Computer Resource Person dcoon@ksu.ksu.edu (913)532-4972 Office From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:40 From: maclure@cvsrf1.arc.nasa.gov (MacLure) Subject: Re: Boeing NSA References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Ames Research Center "Leo Kok" writes: >Ask three questions: >Which company did Boeing own when they were in this market segment? Could it be ..... DEHAVILLAND!!! >Which compnay is dominant in this market segment now? Could it be ..... DEHAVILLAND!!! >Who (country) wants to be in this market segment real bad? Could it be ..... BOEING!!! >Looks like a consortium project.. Mmmmmmm... possibly. >-- >Leo J.J. Kok >Structures Research & Development, Tel: (416)375-3363 >de Havilland Inc.,Garratt Blvd., M/S: N18-06 FAX: (416)375-4537 >DOWNSVIEW, Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5 E-MAIL: lkok@dehavilland.ca Rubbing it in a bit, are we? Now to be scrupulously fair to Boeing, Dehavilland makes/has made world class aircraft. The problem is/was that they had a difficult time making money on these airplanes. -- ################ 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 Tue Apr 15 03:22:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:40 From: eddy@spam-free.ludd.luth.se Subject: Airliner Values Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: remove the "spam-free" to e-mail me Thought you might be interested in the market value of Airliners, have a look on http://www.aeps.com/aeps/jeteval.html Did you know that a -400 series 737 on average is worth *23* times more than a -200 !!! Regards Ed PS. Doesn't mention the 747, anyone have any ideas? eddy@ludd.luth.se -- "Some wag once said that a million monkeys pounding on a million typewriters would eventually produce Shakespeare: well, the Internet is proof this isn't true." - [unknown] From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:40 From: "Hans Jakobsson" Subject: 737 tail question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: . Hello, sometimes I've seen a row of dark pins sticking out of the fuselage on 737-200s. The pins (or nails) are placed in a neat row on each side of the fin, between the stabilizer and fin root. It seems that they are retracted into the fuselage when the aircraft is flying. What are these? Regards Hans J -- Hans Jakobsson, Sweden hansj@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~hansj/index.htm From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:41 From: matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) Subject: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. Why no new Super-Jumbo? This piece involves a certain amount of speculation, and is condensed from several private E-mail's. I think it sheds considerable light on what is going on, and what is likely to happen. 1). The current state of Computational Fluid Dynamics is such that I seriously doubt that any substantial improvement in overall airframe efficiency is possible within the current regulatory environment. I think that has probably pretty much been the case since the 757/767 era. Larger airframes tend to be more efficient because they have more favorable surface to volume ratio's. While there was vast difference in size between the 707 era and 747 era in which the number of passengers you could carry on the aircraft almost tripled, no one is talking about more than doubling the capacity of the current generation, and 747 derivatives were only a 40-60% increase. 2). Engine Performance. Larger engines have tended to more efficient. The differences in specific fuel consumption between the JT8 class engines that flew the 707/727/737 etc. and thegeneration that followed (JT9/CF6/RB211) that flew the next generation were enormous.The JT8's were typically around .61pounds of fuel/pound hour of thrust. The JT9's are typically about .36, a roughly 40% improvement in Fuel Economy. I suspect that class of engines was the firstto benefit from real computer aided designs (not necessary in the drawings, in the fluid dynamics calculations ). Since that time Engine improvements have been much harder to obtain. As best I can tell the best of the available engines today have specific fuel consumption of about .31. Unfortunately data on the current engines (PW4084/PW4090/GE90/Trent800) is not readily available. (Source for engine data is Aviation Week & Space Technology Aerospace Source Book, January 1997). While the improvement form .36 to .31 is about 14%, it has taken 20+ years to do it. It only took about 12 years to go from .61 to .36. This suggests to me that within the current environment, there isn't a lot of room left for improvement in engine efficiency. 3). The cost of the people to design and build these things has gone up immensely. In spite of immense investments in computer technology in the industry (and for that matter everywhere), there appear to have been only very limited productivity gains. The guy with the 200 million instructions per second computer on his desk doesn't get 200 times as much work done as he did 10 years ago when he had a 1 million instruction per second computer on his desk! It is a little like the computer industry. Used to be we gave away the software because all the money was in the hardware. Now we give away the hardware, all the money goes into the software. If you look at the relationship between R&D cost and aircraft selling price, the problem becomes a little clearer. I think the 747 incurred R&D costs of several hundred million, the cost of perhaps 10 copies of the aircraft. The projected R&D costs on A3XX are 8-10 billion, at 250 million a copy that comes to the selling price of 40 aircraft, and current press reports say 200 million is the threshold of serious buyer resistance. 4). The improvements in operating costs of the next generation of aircraft cannot come from engine efficiency or air frame aerodynamic efficiency. There just isn't much left to be gained there. What is left are improvments in weight, which is being done. However the use of relatively exotic materials to produce the weight reductions are expensive and often difficult to work with. In short they drive up the costs substantially. 5). I am not normally involved in the finance side of this business, and I admit my involvement in the industry is on the periphery. However some relatively straight forward calculations lead me to believe the capital costs on these aircraft are what is killing the super jumbo. As best I can tell, the current cost per available seat mile on 747-400 or 777 is on the order of 1.5 cents. On the 747-500/600 based upon the data that was published in Avaiation Week last year, it is probably on the order of 1.8 cents per available seat mile. An all new aircraft such as A3xx will incur even higher R&D costs, and I doubt Airbus can build such an aircraft at a cost that is materially different than Boeing's costs, and in fact there is good data to suggest that Airbus because of its structure, may not even be able to do it as efficiently as Boeing. What that really says is that A3xx's Available seat mile costs are likely to be at least as high as 747-500/600, and quite probably even higher. Given that these costs now appear to represent close to 20% of the total Available Seat Mile costs, this is a very troubling development. In the past, each new generation of aircraft has offered a substantial improvement in Available Seat Mile costs. This analysis suggests that within the current environment, those days may be over. 6), Will such an aircraft be built? My own suspicion is yes, but in order to make it attractive, it is not going to be anytime soon, and it will not look anything at all like the current generation of aircraft. The current regulatory environment places severe requirements on the stability of commercial aircraft. We make the aircraft stable by putting drag in the right places. It makes the aircraft stable, it also does nasty things to the overall aerodynamic efficiency of the airframe. It should come as no surprise that it is likely that the most aerodynamically efficient aircraft are likely to be aircraft that are inherently unstable. That kind of tradeoff is acceptable at the moment in military aircraft such as the F117 and B2. It is not acceptable in a commercial passenger liner today. A brief review of the B2 versus the B1 is quite enlightening, and suggest that a super jumbo in the form of a blended wing, or flying wing might be very attractive. The B1 and B2 have similar payload capacities as best I can tell, however the B2 probably flies further, and weighs about 140,000 pounds less. By civilian standards, the B2 engines are very inefficient. (Specfic fuel consumption is quoted as .66, a CFM56 engine used on an A319 is quoted as .31.This at least suggests to me that such an aircraft design with high efficiency engines might be capable of substantially improved operating costs over any current civilian design. Flying wings however have a reputation for not being especially stable. One of the reason the B47 was selected over the flying wing was the wing apparently made a poor bombing platform. Improvements in control systems and computers apparently make the B2 a stable platform, however I doubt that relying on computers and automation for so much of the basic handling and flight characteristics of an airframe would make people like the FAA very comfortable. Again, a tradeoff that is acceptable in a military environment, not so acceptable in today's civil environment. I think it is going to require a good deal more experience with inherently unstable aircraft before the rules are going to be changed to allow an inherently unstable aircraft to be used for a civilian transport. While I don't doubt it is going to happen, I do doubt it will happen in the immediate future. Until that does happen, I think the prospects for a commercially viable super jumbo are not good. The opinion expressed here are my own. From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:41 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Curtains vs. plastic eyelids 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 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu "Steve Lacker" writes: >I suppose we can blame the French... but then we'd also have to credit >them for the great windows in the Caravelle. > >:-) > Re; French windows... reminded me of seeing a film about the Dassault Mercure used by Air Inter which had polarized window layers that upon rotation would darken the window. If I'm not mistaken I think Hefner had these in the Playboy DC-9 as well. -- -Niels From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:41 From: rdsmyrna@aol.com (RDsmyrna) Subject: Re: Curtains vs. plastic eyelids References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Until an aircraft is built that resembles AMTRAK's Vista Dome cars, all airline windows remind me of the peephole in my front door. From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:42 From: dave lawson Subject: Re: Materials testing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dave Lawson Tom Keesling wrote: > > Could anyone point me in the direction for finding materials testing > procedures in the aerospace industry? I am particulary interested in > 316L stainless, aluminum and titanium. I am in the orthopedic fixator > business, and would like to test these devices for cracks. > > Thanks in advance...Tom You want to review the set of ASTM standards (Volume 15 if memory serves). These are some of the most common testing procedures in use today. But, be warned, these tests are mostly designed to test coupons of base materials like aluminum, titanium, or specific joining techniques. If you want to test completed assemblies for durability under representative loads (ie. for fatigue) then you should get an engineer to look at the problem and suggest some custom test fixtures that might be built to simulate 'live' loads. Hope this helps. Dave From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:42 From: jsw@isise.rl.ac.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Materials testing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISIS Facility, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory On 09 Apr 97 03:09:28 , in , Tom Keesling wrote: >Could anyone point me in the direction for finding materials testing >procedures in the aerospace industry? I am particulary interested in >316L stainless, aluminum and titanium. I am in the orthopedic fixator >business, and would like to test these devices for cracks. You could try asking on sci.techniques.testing.nondestructive or sci.materials. The methods used for detecting cracks are ultrasound or eddy current testing for buried cracks, or magnetic particle testing (only for cracks which reach the surface). To use x-ray techniques for crack detection you have to know the orientation of the crack you want to detect. -- John Wright When your back's against the wall, it's time to turn around and fight - John Major MP From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:42 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Steve Lacker wrote: > ...And I'll sorely miss the 727's. But BOTH types can retire with > the satisfaction of a job VERY WELL DONE. Be glad we'll still have them around to look at (and ride on) for a number of years yet. They're almost totally extinct in the rest of the world, except for Central/South America... I spent two weeks looking at airplanes in Hong Kong and Japan recently, and saw exactly TWO 727s. One was a DHL cargo bird at Hong Kong (never moved), and the other was Continental Micronesia at Sendai, Japan. Jennings Heilig From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:42 From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> <5h6kdu$6sa@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > I have never measured the seat widths of MD-80/90 vs 727/737/757, but in > coach I don't think there is much difference. Fuselage curvature is more > noticeable in a window seat on an MD-80/90, granted, but it's not as bad > as a Fokker or one of the new regional jets. That is precisely the problem I have with DC-9s and their descendants. I am a vertical person: seat width past a certain point is useless; just more space to tuck my paperback when I'm not reading. Legroom, not butt room, is what I worry about. In the DC-9 there is no better pitch than the 737 but the fuselage curvature is maddening (I always take the window seat when I have the choice) and I always have this urge to kick the crap out of the bulge where I want my feet to go. It is a *bad* thing when a 19 passenger turboprop has better legroom than your 120 passenger jet (the Beech 1900D). Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:42 From: matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) Subject: Re: Delta's engine selections References: <5i123g$o3d@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1st Solutions Inc. In article , carrog@geocities.com says... > >H Andrew Chuang wrote: >> >> Delta has just announced its engine selections for the B767 and the B777. >. This means, other than a few B757s, P&W is >> practically shut out of Delta's deal. (The B737 is exclusively powered >> by the CFM56 engine.) It looks like P&W may also be shut out from the AA >> deal. I doubt AA will go with P&W for the B777 powerplant, but let's wait >> and see. Twenty some years ago, P&W had the total domination of the >> engine market. Now, it looks like that P&W may have a hard time holding >> onto its No. 2 position! > > I find this rather odd! > Pratt & Whitney engines have powered more passenger miles > than any other source. Their contribution to civil aviation > development is unsurpassed, with advanced design that other > manufactures were only too pleased to follow. Do you work for PW? the RB211 runs rings around the JT9 just about every airline that flies 747's with RR engines started with PW's, and the CF6's eat JT9s for breakfast on fuel economy and TBO. Wide chord blade wasn't developed by PW. Modular engine wasn't either. Pratt repuation came from an era when there were no other choices. That is no longer true. A great deal of PW's success comes from the perceived savings by sticking to one engine manufacturer. NW won't fly it if it doesn't have PW engines. > Perhaps their commitment to standards, rather to a price, > has some bearing on the matter; since deregulation, and the > apparent inability of the FAA to stop the increasing couterfeiting > of aircraft spares. I don't think it is any secret that a lot of airlines got very ticked off at PW's attitude in the mid 1980's. I know JAL was very public about it, and that is why JAL's 747-400's have CF6's. JAL also got burned on the D10-40's, which NW has. They just never provided the high/hot performance JAL wanted, and PW promised. If you talk to mechanics, given the choice between working on a GE or a PW engine, all the ones I talk to pick the GE every time. In terms of fuel economy, according to the specific fuel consumption figures published in Aviation Week and Space Technolgies 1997 Source Book, GE is the leader in both medium (CFM56) and large (CF6) categories. I have not seen published figures for any of the current RR, or PW or GE-90 series engines however. My opinions anyway. From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:42 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta's engine selections References: <5i123g$o3d@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > NW won't fly it if it doesn't have PW engines. While the once was true, it obviously isn't true anymore -- NW uses the GE/Snecma CFM56 on their A320s (while there is no PW option, they could have selected IAE's V2500, in which PW is a partner) and they have added some used, GE-equipped DC-10-30s in recent years. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:42 From: tjarko@dutlbcz.lr.tudelft.nl (Tjarko de Jong) Subject: Re: Relative Engine Power References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology On 09 Apr 97 03:09:28 , "john r." wrote: > >Can anyone give me some approximate guidelines to compare jet engine >thrust and rotating shaft power. >We were recently looking over The Queen Mary at Long Beach and in the >engine room it said that the four turbines produced about 260,000 horse >power between them. About as much as a modern Jumbo I said but was >greeted with disbelief. > >Was I that far out ? In general the pwoer is the thrust multiplied with the speed so: engine about 56000 pound = 250 kN speed 490 knots= 240 m/s so power is 240*250,000=60 MWatt per engine total plane 240MWatt thus 320,000 horse power. This is however when the plane uses full power in cruise, this should never happen. during take-off the power is less because the speed is less. Further is this probally the static maximun thrust and not not thrus whille flying that one is lower. Tjarko From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:42 From: curta@iac.net (Curt Austin) Subject: Re: Relative Engine Power References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Access Cincinnati In article , "john r." wrote: > Can anyone give me some approximate guidelines to compare jet engine > thrust and rotating shaft power. > We were recently looking over The Queen Mary at Long Beach and in the > engine room it said that the four turbines produced about 260,000 horse > power between them. About as much as a modern Jumbo I said but was > greeted with disbelief. A rough conversion is that a 50,000 lb thrust engine will produce about 50,000 horsepower when converted to a marine-industrial engine. So you are correct (4 x 65,000 = 260,000). Compare a CF6-80C2 with an LM-5000 or a CF6-80E1 with an LM-6000 for a more accurate comparison. The various ways of rating and operating engines makes direct comparisons difficult, of course. -- Curt Austin http://www.iac.net/~curta/ curta@iac.net Curt.M.Austin@ccmail.ae.ge.com Cincinnati, Ohio From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:43 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Relative Engine Power References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article john r. (john@guava.demon.co.uk) wrote: > > Can anyone give me some approximate guidelines to compare jet engine > thrust and rotating shaft power. power = force x velocity Thus, 1 lb thrust @ 375 mph (or 550 ft/sec) is equivalent to 1 shp. > We were recently looking over The Queen Mary at Long Beach and in the > engine room it said that the four turbines produced about 260,000 horse > power between them. About as much as a modern Jumbo I said but was > greeted with disbelief. > > Was I that far out ? Well, pardon my ignorance. How fast can (or could) the Queen Mary travel? 40 kts perhaps? If so, then the equivalent thrust at cruise will be: 260,000 * 375 / (40 * 1.15) ~ 2,200,000 lbf The total thrust of a B747 with four PW4056 engines is 224,000 lbf. Nevertheless, I do not think the thrust comparsion of two objects moving at very different speeds is meaningful. From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:43 From: fintubi@navier.stanford.edu (Bill Urban) Subject: Re: Relative Engine Power References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Stanford University In article , "john r." wrote: > Can anyone give me some approximate guidelines to compare jet engine > thrust and rotating shaft power. > We were recently looking over The Queen Mary at Long Beach and in the > engine room it said that the four turbines produced about 260,000 horse > power between them. About as much as a modern Jumbo I said but was > greeted with disbelief. > > Was I that far out ? I don't think you were far out at all. The trick in making this comparison is deciding which energy flows in the jet qualify as 'useful', and converting them all into power terms, which, of course, is not usually done with thrust - at rest, thrust can be high but power (from a propulsion standpoint) is zero. So I'll circumvent all of this and just look at the energy flow rate (i.e. power) INTO the engine, and show that derating this figure by any reasonable efficiency will still gives a damn big number. This calculation will set new standards for crudeness: JT9D - fuel flow at SLTO is 19,600 lb/hr (19600 lb/hr)*(20000 btu/lb)*(1hr/3600s)*(778 ftlb/btu)*(1hp/550ftlb/s) = 154,000 HP - rate of flow of chemical energy into engine Even for 20% efficiency, this gives 30,000 HP per engine or 120,000 HP per plane. Since modern engines produce about 50% more thrust (with considerably higher efficiency) than the JT9D I used the fuel flow figure for, the actual number is probably pushing the Queen Mary's 260,000 HP. Anyone with better figures is welcome to speak up! Bill From kls Tue Apr 15 03:22:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 03:22:43 From: euclid1@juno.com (Ptolomy) Subject: Re: Relative Engine Power References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom "john r." wrote: >Can anyone give me some approximate guidelines to compare jet engine >thrust and rotating shaft power. >We were recently looking over The Queen Mary at Long Beach and in the >engine room it said that the four turbines produced about 260,000 horse >power between them. About as much as a modern Jumbo I said but was >greeted with disbelief. For jet engines, the rough conversion is one lb of thrust equals one horse power at 30,000 ft. So, for a B747 with, say, RR RB211's ( they deliver about 58,000lbs thrust each) X 4, would give you around 232,000 hp when operating at max power at 30,000 ft. As you see, you were not far off in your presumption. Anyway, hope this helps. Regards, JCD A&P From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:41 From: geoffnich@aol.com (GeoffNich) Subject: ABC News Segment on Active Noise Control for DC-9/MD-80 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com According to reporter Jack Smith, ABC News is scheduled to aire a segment on NVX=99 Active Noise Control during the April 15, 1997, early evening national network broadcast (Peter Jennings) in a segment entitled "Solutions". [Moderator's Note -- The show has reportedly been preempted and is now scheduled for the early evening news on April 29, 1997. -- Karl] Geoff Nicholson Lord Corporation (919) 859-4911 Ext. 6403 From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:41 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Overheard on channel 9 ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , Andrew Goldfinger wrote: >Could someone explain what was going on here? Is FL 410 so close to the >service ceiling that a little chop (and presumably some gusts from the >rear) are problematic? Probably not. The (probable) main concern of the unknown airliner pilot was that the light chop would be uncomfortable for the passengers, and would complicate things like passenger service, etc. Also, pilots don't necessarily like to fly in turbulence (even light turbulence) any more than the passengers. Finally, there's always the possibility that you'll encounter a 3-sigma type bump which could actually be dangerous. 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 Tue Apr 15 12:56:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:41 From: "D Snow" Subject: Re: Overheard on channel 9 ... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > Recently, on a United flight, I was listening to channel 9 (cockpit > communications). An airliner of unknown type was cleared to FL 410. It > then requested that it be sent no higher that 390. The controller asked > why: "don't you have the performance for 410?" "Yes," came the reply, > "but not in the light chop that is reported there." > > Could someone explain what was going on here? Is FL 410 so close to the > service ceiling that a little chop (and presumably some gusts from the > rear) are problematic? Depending on the a/c type. If he was over his 1.3G or 1.5G Buffet margin weight for FL410, then yes. If any turbulence had been reported, then the crew must take that into account as well. Since, in your example, light chop was reported, then the crew MUST at least be under their Max Cruise Thrust Limited Weight for a 1.3G buffet, or even 1.5G if the captain felt it was necessary. Some aircraft in general have such a small margin between low-speed stall and the high speed mach buffet margin (the coffin corner). A B727 around 125,000 lbs at FL390 only has less than 20 kts between lo- speed and hi-speed buffet, at 1.3G buffet. ----- Douglas Snow Tech Support - Cyberlink Inc. http://www.michianatoday.com dougie@michianatoday.com From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:42 From: Steven McDowell Subject: Flying in the Jump Seat (was: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sybase, Waterloo > >On a more general note: what is the situation about this on different > >airlines. I know it is officially (ICAO ?) not permitted, but would be > >interested on experience by others in the newsgroup. I have asked to sit in the jumpseat for a landing many times and was unsuccessful until last year, when I was permitted to sit in the jumpseat of an Air Canada 767 during landing at Toronto. I had visited the flight deck earlier and had had a very enjoyable conversation with the crew about (personal) computers. I think it was just one of those things where we got along really well. Before I left, I said "what does a fellow have to do sit in the cockpit during landing?". The captain just said to tell the stewardess to bring me up before landing. I spoke to the stewardess during descent and arrived in the cockpit while we were about 15000 feet up. The captain helped me buckle in, gave me headphones to listen to ATC and then ignored me the rest of the way. Besides one "Wow", I did not say a word until engines stop. It was a beautiful cloudless day with incredible visibility. We flew over the airport at about 10000 feet, turned over Mississauga (suburb of Toronto) and landed eastbound. The work of "flying" mostly consisted of flying the computer (spin a dial, punch a few keys) until about a minute before touchdown, when the FO took over. It was fascinating watching the FO adjust the desired flight level, then see the throttles move themselves back, feel the plane descend faster, the throttles move forward again as the descent slowed, all from spinning one dial. The only moment of concern came when a stern voice from the cockpit console said "Monitor vertical airspeed" several times. This occurred right after ATC had told us to look out for traffic below us. The Captain and FO looked out the window, twiddled a few knobs, then sat back as before. I asked about it afterwards and they said that they had not encountered that particular warning before, but that there was another aircraft below, and that we were descending faster than they were, so the onboard radar had caused the warning to indicate that we were closing on them. However, we were never close. The Captain and FO had just adjusted our descent rate until the other aircraft was clear. The whole experience was a (very) high point of my life, definitely in the top five. My face hurt for three days afterward from smiling so much. I highly recommend it. As for US airlines, I think they are pretty strict, but on one flight (don't recall which US airline) I did see one very pretty blonde go up into the cockpit during cruise and not come out till after landing. I think the rules are different for pretty women! ;-) Steve -- My real e-mail address is: smcdowell (at) sybase (dot) com From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:42 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Can an Airbus 320/321/330/340 perform a controlled glide? 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 Pete Mellor writes: >In the event of loss of all 5 computers in the Electrical Flight >Control System (EFCS) the crew can control pitch by moving the >Trimmable Horizontal Stabiliser (THS) using the pitch trim >wheels, and yaw (and roll to some extent) by operating the rudder >via the pedals. Connection to both of these surfaces is mechanical A minor quibble. These "mechanical" linkages lead to hydraulic actuators. There is no "stick-to-surface" reversion mode. This is different from the normal modes of operation, which use electrical signals which have first been processed by computers to command the hydraulic actuators. In this respect, the "fly-by-wire" merely replaces the control cable linkages found in non-FBW aircraft, and none of the hydraulic plumbing. Other small airplanes, such as the 727 or 737, have true "manual reversion" capabilities, in which the control cables signal control tabs, which aerodynamically position the control surfaces. This results in heavy and mushy controls, but does provide a credible "get it on the ground" capability in the event of complete hydraulic failure. Most modern aircraft, particularly large airplanes, are purely hydraulic. If you lose all hydraulic systems, you pretty much die. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:42 From: gsjames@ix.netcom.com (Gary S. James ) Subject: Re: Can an Airbus 320/321/330/340 perform a controlled glide? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom >In the event of loss of all 5 computers in the Electrical Flight >Control System (EFCS) the crew can control pitch by moving the >Trimmable Horizontal Stabiliser (THS) using the pitch trim >wheels, and yaw (and roll to some extent) by operating the rudder >via the pedals. I fly A-320's for a major US airline and as part of our training we area required to "fly" the airplane using these backup modes. I assure you, that from a practical point of view the airplane is virtually uncontrollable in this mode and would be incapable of making anything remotely resembling a controlled landing. Additionally, there has been one instance where all flight computers were turned off momentarily in flight. Panic ensued... and the aircraft nearly went out of control. -- Curved Air Technologies GSJames@ix.netcom.com Gary S. James 70264.2530@CompuServe.com PO Box 1474 tel: (817) 596-3278 Weatherford, TX. 76086-1474 (800) 377-3618 Aircraft Design, Analysis and Consulting From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:42 From: Jeff Cybulski Subject: DC-8's in Tulsa Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Reply-To: skiea3b@earthlink.net Does anyone know any info. on the 3 Alitalia DC-8's that have beeb in storage in Tulsa? I've been here 6 years and thay have not moved. Thanks From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:42 From: Emile Okal Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NU Geological Sci. J. Heilig wrote: > > Steve Lacker wrote: > > > ...And I'll sorely miss the 727's. But BOTH types can retire with > > the satisfaction of a job VERY WELL DONE. > > Be glad we'll still have them around to look at (and ride on) for a > number of years yet. They're almost totally extinct in the rest of the > world, except for Central/South America... 727s extinct? There are still plenty of them to be seen daily at ORD (AA, UA), STL (TW), just to mention a few. EAO From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:42 From: Nikkie Waalewijn Subject: Re: How often are airliners washed?! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NLnet Reply-To: nwaalewijn@dataweb.nl eddy@spam-free.ludd.luth.se wrote: > How often are airliners cleaned externally? Every time they fly trough a rainshower! -- Nikkie Waalewijn http://www.dataweb.net/~nwaalewijn From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:42 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: 737-400/800 fuselage lengths 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 Can someone state categorically whether or not the 737-400 is the same fuselage length as the -800? In the latest issue of Airliners Jon Proctor writes that the -800 is "a stretched version of the current 737-400", but I have been told by someone else that Boeing plans say that the two fuselages are the same. Relatedly, whether or not the fuselage is the same, does the new faster wing on the -800 need a new position on the airframe? -- -Niels From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:42 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 737-400/800 fuselage lengths References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Can someone state categorically whether or not the 737-400 >is the same fuselage length as the -800? Obviously Boeing can. Look on http://www.boeing.com where you'll find that "the 737-800 is a stretched version of the current 737-400." The overall length is listed as 129'6" (39.5 m), versus 119'7" (36.4 m) for the 737-400. >I have been told by someone else that Boeing plans >say that the two fuselages are the same. They were wrong. >Relatedly, whether or not the fuselage is the same, >does the new faster wing on the -800 need a new position >on the airframe? Comparing photographs of the 737-700 to the 737-300 (same fuselage length), each has eleven windows after the forward doors, a blank in-line with the engine's fan, then five more windows and then the overwing exit. A crude measure, I'll admit, but it suggests that the wings are at least very close to the same position relative to the fuselage, and similarly the engines. The 737-800 might have its wing relatively further back than the 737-400, not because of the wing but to maintain the CG and perhaps to minimize tail strikes. (The landing gear is also taller on the new generation 737s.) -- 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 Apr 15 12:56:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:42 From: tassio@watson.ibm.com Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center I have questions for the proponents of a commercial flying wing. Could this ship use existing airport facilities and runways? How hard would be to adapt present infrastructure? And after all, what are the dimensions of a flying wing with the same cargo/pax/range capabilities of current airliners, like a 767-300 or a 747-400? I'm thinking you guys are spending too much time in the wind tunnel. Given the projected growth in passenger trips, the fact that the world population will stop growing, and that each one of us can only do up to a given amount of travel (some cannot do any because they are scared of flying), the size of the largest aircraft available to airlines will converge to a given number. On top of that, the original posting already mentioned that the economies of scale for aircraft large than the 747 may not exist. There would be no incentive to pack 800 people together if it costs the same to pack them in two 400-people sets. And the latter is becoming more and more a much better marketing proposition. Scenario: Boeing launches a stretched 777-400 and drops the 747 for good. Tassio From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:43 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 15 Apr 97 03:22:41 , matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) wrote: Matt's analysis, speculation, and deductions on: > Why no new Super-Jumbo? focus almost entirely on the commercial efficiency of a potential aircraft, as measured in cost per seat mile/kilometer (and obviously the cargo equivalent: ton(ne)-mile/km). But... just as the computer industry evolved from hardware to software driven (as Matt observes), so is the aviation industry facing a similar transition. The change here, though, is predicated on the fact that contemporary aircraft are extremely efficient... BUT the realities of ground handling are beginning to take their toll. British Airways COO Dr. Alistair Cumming stated at a conference in LA that "BA is committed to the need for larger aircraft than the 747 because of the approaching saturation point of airports and the infrastructure. Only one thing can help the industry grow in this context, and that is larger aeroplanes. The industry cries out for more efficient use of flights and slots by the provision of larger aircraft". More data: two thirds of the current 747 fleet serve only 20 hubs, and about 130 aircraft are on just 15 city-pairs. It seems to me that the real unknown in the equation is whether the growth of hub by-pass and point-to-point routes was a result of market demand for such services, or a result of an inability to supply an effective hub-and-spoke operation within the constraints of capacity controller airports. Cumming also remarked that BA was ready to be the launch customer for the 747-600X, but that the latter stages of the Boeing development plan showed increasing inferiority to the proposed cost structure of an all-new, purpose built aircraft. There was also speculation that the McD-D merger plans altered Boeing's priorities, such that a new developmental large aircraft took a lower priority to defence projects. Meanwhile, Airbus (John Leahy) is claiming a 15% improvement potential in direct operating costs for an A3XX (presumably, over the 747-400, but who knows?), but won't have anything ready for service until the end of 2003. And for the next six years, I dare say Boeing will be happy to sell 747-400s... Malc. From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:43 From: Richard Silagi Subject: Re: Two DC-10s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Internet Reply-To: SILAGI@prodigy.net James Oliver wrote: > > Any help with the histories of two DC-10s we flew this week? > > They are... > > SUN COUNTRY N571SC and N572SC > > Thanks in advance, and clear skies to all > > Jim OLIVER N571SC: DC-10-10 S/N 46645 Date Built: 4/79 7-19-79 Del'd to Western Airlines N912WA 4-1-87 Transfered to Delta Airlines w/merger 5-6-88 Sold to United Aviation Services 5-6-88 Leased to Scanair 6-16-88 Sold to Scandanavian Air Chartering Inc 6-16-88 Leased to Scanair 6-16-88 Sub-Leased to American Airlines 3-19-89 Returned to Scanair 6-14-89 Sub-Leased to World Airways 12-15-89 Re-registered as SE-DHX ?-?-90 Sub-Leased to Malaysian Airways 8-?-90 Returned to World Airways 5-29-91 Returned to Scanair 7-10-91 Sub-Leased to Sun Country 3-1-94 Re-Registered as N571SC N572SC: DC-10-10 S/N 46977 Date Built: 1/78 3-17-78 Delivered to Western Airlines as N908WA 4-1-87 Transfered to Delta with merger 5-?-88 Sold to United Aviation Services 5-17-88 Leased to Scanair 6-28-88 Sold to Scandanavian Air Chartering 6-28-88 Leased to Scanair 6-28-88 Sub-Leased to American Airlines 1-12-89 Returned to Scanair 3-12-89 Re-Registered as SE-DHZ 6-20-91 Sub-Leased to Sun Country 4-19-94 Re-Registered as N572SC Hope this info helps. It came from "Jet Airliner Production List Vol-2" Richard Silagi Fremont, CA From kls Tue Apr 15 12:56:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Apr 97 12:56:43 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: 737 tail question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , "Hans Jakobsson" wrote: >sometimes I've seen a row of dark pins sticking out of the fuselage on >737-200s. The pins (or nails) are placed in a neat row on each side of the >fin, between the stabilizer and fin root. It seems that they are retracted >into the fuselage when the aircraft is flying. What are these? I'm assuming you're seeing vortex generators, which are actually thin "tabs" sticking off the fuselage, rather than pins or nails. Their purpose is to keep the airflow from separating off the aft body & horizontal stabilizer, by adding energy to the boundary layer (at the cost of a small amount of extra drag.) Vortex generators are used in a variety of places on a lot of modern transports. They are most notable, for example, on the top surface of the B737 wing. They aren't retractable, either. 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 news Mon Apr 7 19:30:37 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!144.212.100.12!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal Date: 07 Apr 1997 15:36:19 -0400 Organization: Little to None Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5ibibm$80i@kragar.kei.com> References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> <5gs6cu$kqb@kragar.kei.com> <5h6hrn$6sa@kragar.kei.com> <5hufks$cgd@kragar.kei.com> <5i3j6p$jdo@kragar.kei.com> On 04 Apr 1997 14:01:42 -0500, "Stephen D. Todd" wrote: >Perhaps someone else could help us out here, but I know that at least a >year ago United wrote what was considered to be a "stinging" letter to >Boeing regarding the operational reliability of the aircraft. (referring to the B777-200A) I'm reliably informed that this was a media storm in a teacup. By the time Boeing actually received the letter, most of the issues had been resolved by the operations (as opposed to management) folks. The tone of the document was generally considered to be a result of the personality of the author, rather than the mood of airline! Of course, the press was delighted to hear what they thought was some dirt on an aircraft that had been getting glowingly nice reports... >Things may have changed since then, I don't know. I know that initially UA >was extremely pleased with the aircraft, complimenting it is as the most >reliable (new) aircraft they had ever operated (during it's integration >into the fleet). And since then, other airlines have voted with their pocket books, suggesting that the thing really is what they want... >Steve. Malc. From news Mon Apr 7 19:30:37 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!uwm.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net!worldnet.att.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu (Peter Hollingsworth) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Delta's engine selections Date: 07 Apr 1997 15:56:52 -0400 Organization: The Grandscale Earthly Destructor Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5ibji7$80i@kragar.kei.com> References: <5i123g$o3d@chronicle.concentric.net> In article <5i123g$o3d@chronicle.concentric.net>, Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > Delta has just announced its engine selections for the B767 and the > B777. For the B767, Delta reverts back to the CF6 engine! Currently, > the CF6-80A engine on Delta's GE-powered B767s is an older generation > CF6. Delta also has many PW4060-powered B767-300ERs in its fleet. For > Delta's newly ordered B767s, the CF6-80C2B6/B7 have been selected. > Delta also has options on ten B777-200s. If it chooses to convert these > options, Rolls-Royce's Trent 892 will be used! Obviously, Delta will > use the B777 for long range operations. > To me, this is a big surprise. This means, other than a few B757s, P&W > is practically shut out of Delta's deal. (The B737 is exclusively > powered by the CFM56 engine.) It looks like P&W may also be shut out > from the AA deal. I doubt AA will go with P&W for the B777 powerplant, > but let's wait and see. Twenty some years ago, P&W had the total > domination of the engine market. Now, it looks like that P&W may have a > hard time holding onto its No. 2 position! The CF6's that delta is opting for the CF6-80C2B6/B7 are ccompletely new to delta either, The Gulf air 767's that Delta just purchased, are powered by the CF6-80C2's. I understand that delta and P&W may have had some sort of falling out. don't know though as I am not privilaged to any of those things. -- Peter Hollingsworth The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor E-Mail:gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu WWW: http://petex.gt.ed.net From news Mon Apr 7 19:30:37 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!144.212.95.13!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: M Carling Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal Date: 07 Apr 1997 15:39:26 -0400 Organization: Merrill Lynch Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5ibihh$80i@kragar.kei.com> References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> <5gs6cu$kqb@kragar.kei.com> <5h6hrn$6sa@kragar.kei.com> <5hufks$cgd@kragar.kei.com> <5i3j6p$jdo@kragar.kei.com> Stephen D. Todd wrote: > Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: > > That's strange, because even United's 777 have had an operational > > record that is better than any other airplane in service. BA has had > > trouble with the 777 IGWs engines, but that's GE, not Boeing. > Perhaps someone else could help us out here, but I know that at least a > year ago United wrote what was considered to be a "stinging" letter to > Boeing regarding the operational reliability of the aircraft. > Things may have changed since then, I don't know. I know that initially > UA was extremely pleased with the aircraft, complimenting it is as the > most reliable (new) aircraft they had ever operated (during it's > integration into the fleet). The letter which United wrote to Boeing complaining about the 777's teething problems was: 1) comparing the 777 with what Boeing had promised, not against other aircraft. 2) reportedly a normal part of the shakedown process because the contracts typically include penalties that the manufacturer must pay to the airline if contracted performance goals aren't met. M Carling From news Tue Apr 8 21:20:42 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!206.229.87.25!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!sprint!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news2.acs.oakland.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal Date: 8 Apr 1997 22:22:11 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5iegej$l2q@chronicle.concentric.net> References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> <5h6hrn$6sa@kragar.kei.com> <5hufks$cgd@kragar.kei.com> <5i3jfn$jdo@kragar.kei.com> In article <5i3jfn$jdo@kragar.kei.com>, J. Heilig wrote: >Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: > >> Stephen D. Todd wrote: >> > On countless occasions I've heard the 777 referred to as the Trouble-7. >> > Rumour has it that UA experiences frequent mech delays. Althought the >> > M11 seems to go mech in "spurts" ie: last week of every month... or >> > something to that effect. > >> That's strange, because even United's 777 have had an operational >> record that is better than any other airplane in service. BA has had >> trouble with the 777 IGWs engines, but that's GE, not Boeing. > > > Thank you for a voice of reason. What most people seem to lack is a >sense of perspective. Sure, the 777 has had problems, but the fact is, >its in service reliability rate is higher than any other aircraft in >history (at this stage of its life). A friend who used to work in >safety engineering at GE's engine division told me she'd never step foot >on a GE90 powered aircraft, knowing what she knew about the program. >The results seem to be what we're seeing with BA's problems right now. I was very skeptic of the GE90 as it is the only newly designed engine for the B777. Historically, new engines usually have more teething problems than derivative engines. However, the GE90's record is actually quite impressive. According to AW&ST, the dispatch reliability rate of BA's B777 in the first year is 99.97%. The same rate of China Southern's B777, GE's second customer, is 99.48%. While for the whole B777 fleet is 98.4%. Thus, the GE90-powered B777 actually has a better record than both the PW4000-powered and Trent 800-powered B777. I know the latter even had at least one inflight shutdown, while neither GE-powered nor Pratt-powered B777 had any. All three have unscheduled removals. In this category, I believe Pratt is No. 1 with the lowest unscheduled removal rate. BTW, BA's B777IGW has returned to regular trans-Atlantic services with a temporary fix. Later this month, China Southern will inaugurate non-stop B777 trans-Pacific service between Guangzhou and Los Angeles. From news Sun Apr 13 12:15:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.clark.net!news.mathworks.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!sprint!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: ei7gm@iol.ie (Paul Kearney) Subject: Re: Fuel Tank Safety Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: Ireland On-Line Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 17:25:03 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu "P. Wezeman" wrote: : : The current Aviation Week has an article on various proposals to : prevent the possible explosion of airliner fuel tanks. They : : Foam filling has the advantage of no moving parts or sensors. It is : effective at suppressing explosions if a fuel tank is hit repeatedly ehhhhh, pardon me , and excuse me if i seem pedantic..... but, How are you supposed to get into a fuel tank for repairs/inspection when its full of foam ? Lord knows its cramped enough :-) Props are for Boats - but whats a B-o-a-t ? From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:55 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> <5h6kdu$6sa@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana "McElravy" writes: >It is a *bad* thing when a 19 passenger >turboprop has better legroom than your 120 passenger jet (the Beech 1900D). I could swear that all of the American Eagle turboprop planes have more thigh-room than American's MD-80's. My knees are sore after those MD-80 flights. From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:56 From: Alan Wong Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Emile Okal wrote: > > Steve Lacker wrote: > > > > Be glad we'll still have them around to look at (and ride on) for a > > number of years yet. They're almost totally extinct in the rest of the > > world, except for Central/South America... > > 727s extinct? > > There are still plenty of them to be seen daily at ORD (AA, UA), STL > (TW), just to mention a few. Steve Lacker meant 727s are almost extinct outside the Americas. And he's right. Passenger 727s are being retired rather quickly or converted to cargo only. The only passenger 727s I can think of operating outside the Americas are Continental Micronesia, Ansett Australia (which are being withdrawn this weekend), BA in South Africa. I'm sure I've missed some, but you get the idea - there aren't very many of them. From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:56 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Delta's engine selections References: <5i123g$o3d@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories matt weber wrote: > > In article , carrog@geocities.com > says... > Do you work for PW? the RB211 runs rings around the JT9 just about every > airline that flies 747's with RR engines started with PW's, and the CF6's eat > JT9s for breakfast on fuel economy and TBO. But then again, the JT9 was the first successful engine in that class, too, and Pratt is no longer making it. My point is you should compare the RB211 and CF-6 to the PW4000. Rolls almost never got the RB211 to work, bankrupted themselves, nearly bankrupted Lockheed, and essentially handed the big trijet market to Douglas, effectively putting Lockheed out of the passenger aircraft business. Not a pretty point in Rolls' history. None of the above is to say that today's RB211 is not a fine engine, nor does it detract from the superb record of the GE CF-6. Pratt used to be *clearly* the innovator in the field. That is no longer true, and Pratt is feeling it. A very good book for anyone interested in aircraft propulsion is 'Encyclopedia of Aero Engines' by Bill Gunston. It has lots of great information on Pratt, GE, Rolls, and virtually every other company that's ever made airplane engines. The internal bickerings at Rolls in the post-WW2 to early 70's time frame make good reading for those that like soap operas :-) -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:56 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Delta's engine selections References: <5i123g$o3d@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >> NW won't fly it if it doesn't have PW engines. > >While the once was true, it obviously isn't true anymore -- NW uses the >GE/Snecma CFM56 on their A320s (while there is no PW option, they could >have selected IAE's V2500, in which PW is a partner) and they have added >some used, GE-equipped DC-10-30s in recent years. Just to add another tidbit: NW almost helped the launch of the MD95. NW insisted on the PW6000 for the powerplant. Somehow, MD/NW/P&W couldn't reach to an agreement, and NW lost interest in the MD95. From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:56 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Delta's engine selections References: <5i123g$o3d@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , matt weber wrote: > >I don't think it is any secret that a lot of airlines got very ticked off at >PW's attitude in the mid 1980's. I know JAL was very public about it, and that >is why JAL's 747-400's have CF6's. JAL also got burned on the D10-40's, which >NW has. They just never provided the high/hot performance JAL wanted, and PW >promised. OTOH, JAL did go back to the PW4000 for the MD11 and B777. >If you talk to mechanics, given the choice between working on a GE >or a PW engine, all the ones I talk to pick the GE every time. In terms of >fuel economy, according to the specific fuel consumption figures published in >Aviation Week and Space Technolgies 1997 Source Book, GE is the leader in both >medium (CFM56) and large (CF6) categories. I have not seen published figures >for any of the current RR, or PW or GE-90 series engines however. For aircraft that are still in production: The CF6 leads in the A300/310, MD11, B747-400, and B767 markets. The PW4000 leads in the A330 and the B777 markets. The RB211 leads in the B757 market. The CFM56 leads in the A319/320/321 market, and of course, it owns the B737 and the A340 markets. Nevertheless, it will still be a while before it can catch up with the JT8D in terms of total installed engines. The IAE's V2500 is not in a good shape. Delta's retirment of its MD90 fleet is not helping IAE at all. From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:56 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Alan Wong wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: [snip] >Older 747s tend to be dedicated regional aircraft in Asia and these are often >configured as such. These are the planes that airlines such as Cathay and >Singapore are replacing with 777s. The B777-200s CX has received are for L-1011 replacement. In 1998, it will start receiving B777-300s to replace some of its B747-200s. For SQ, the B777-200 are for A310 replacement (which I don't think make too much sense on many of SQ's routes). [snip] > >> I can't really see how the A340-500X/600X can be a successful program. >> Perhaps that's why GE was not interested in the exclusive engine deal. >> The B777-200X/A340-500X market is probably not that big. Thus, my guess >> is that Airbus would have to rely more on the -600X sales than the -500X. >> However, I doubt the A340-600X has enough technical and financial merits >> to set itself apart from the, albeit 30-year old, B747. Well, with the >> A340-600, Lufthansa will be a step closer to having an all-Airbus >> fleet. ;-) > >I too don't think A340-500X/600X will be launched. I did not say the A340-500X/600X would not be launched. I only speculated that it would not be successful. In fact, in my original post, I speculated that Cathay Pacific could be one of the launch customers for the A340-500X. I can't see Airbus not launching the A340-500X/600X. Nevertheless, I just don't think it will be too successful. From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:57 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 Malc wrote: >Not expand, but retire. >In 2005, the "entire" fleet will all be well over 30 years old, and will >all have significantly exceeded the original design life (which is where >some of the aircraft stand right now, hence the current "relife" program >by BAe at Bristol). Parts are a problem even now (I think two items, >one BA, one AF, are effectively grounded for cannibalization). >That said, BA/BAe may find ways to extend the fleet's life still further >so that in 2005 they are still flying; but the original article was >talking about current expectations (three years ago it was generally >considered unlikely that Concorde would fly past 2000). Flight magazine, in Feb 1996, had a short article about Concorde. Based on that article, I don't think any of the aircraft have reached their original design life yet. Flight quotes the figure of 6700 reference flights as the current airframe life, with BA's lead aircraft at 5900 flights, and Air France not expecting its lead aircraft to reach 6700 till 2005. Where does 6700 come from? Flight says: "The original design life was 24000 flights." I believe the figure of 6700 is based on dividing the number of test cycles on the fatigue rig (20000) by a 'safety factor' of 3, and is not related directly to the design life. In the article, Air France were quoted as saying they will keep Concorde in service for another 20 years. The article comments that the CAA and DGAC had approved, in principle, an increase in the life of Concordes to 8500 reference flights, which will be sufficient to keep BAs youngest Concorde in service till around 2014. I'll probably retire before it does! Regards Alex (NOT speaking for Eurocontrol) From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:57 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Curtains vs. plastic eyelids References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics RDsmyrna wrote: > > Until an aircraft is built that resembles AMTRAK's Vista Dome cars, all > airline windows remind me of the peephole in my front door. Ever fly on a Vickers Viscount or Vanguard? Those windows are about the size of your front door.... Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:57 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Sexy airliners (was: Re: 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: > >> : 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. In another post, I mentioned the CV-990 Coronado as being one of my favorite looking airliners, and asked if any were still flying. After I sent that post, I remembered that NASA had once used one to test Shuttle landing gear performance, and found photos of it on the Dryden web page: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PhotoServer/LSRA/index.html (Wow! those aft-fan GE turbofans are as smoky as J-57s) To answer my own question, it appears at least one is still flyable- some photos on that index page are from as late as '95. I don't know why I think the CV 990 is so sharp looking. Maybe its the anti-shock blisters on the trailing edge (which were a kludge to get it to meet its advertized performance, but still look futuristic), or just the generally clean lines on a small 4-engine airliner. -- 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 Wed Apr 16 01:55:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:57 From: "Mark E. Ingram" Subject: Re: DC-8's in Tulsa Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 15 Apr 1997, Jeff Cybulski wrote: > Does anyone know any info. on the 3 Alitalia DC-8's that have > beeb in storage in Tulsa? I've been here 6 years and thay have > not moved. Jeff, I don't think you will ever see those moved, except as scrap. I took a look at those up close a few months ago, and they are in shambles (no engines, parts canibalized, and lots of deterioration). I was told - completely unofficially - that whoever owned them at the time they were parked defaulted (or just abandoned them), and someone had then foreclosed on the airframes to pay the parking fees. Again, this is second-hand hearsay, so take it for what it is worth. Regards, Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:57 From: "David F. Wagener" Subject: Re: Airliner Values References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DaNet Design, Ltd. eddy@spam-free.ludd.luth.se wrote in article ... > Thought you might be interested in the market value of Airliners, have > a look on http://www.aeps.com/aeps/jeteval.html > > Did you know that a -400 series 737 on average is worth *23* times > more than a -200 !!! Yup...you can pick up a good 737-200 from an airline for about 600K...thats $600,000. Unlike the going rate of -400 around $35 million. From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:57 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana tassio@watson.ibm.com writes: >Given the projected growth in passenger trips, the fact that the >world population will stop growing, and that each one of us can only do >up to a given amount of travel (some cannot do any because >they are scared of flying), the size of the largest aircraft >available to airlines will converge to a given number. Hmmm... people who do the sort of population prediction you are talking about are not expecting the world's population to stop growing anytime really soon. Furthermore, we could get a 100 fold increase in air travel if everyone flew as much as Americans currently do (even without an increase in population). In short, I don't think that your "lack-of-demand-growth" argument holds much weight. There may well be reasons that a super-jumbo does not get built for a while... but it won't be because of a lack of demand for passenger-miles. Sincerely, Terry From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:57 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: US Airways Fleet Changes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics David F. Wagener wrote: > Anyone have any clue when the Fokkers will be sent to Arizona? I assume you mean the F.28s? Not sure. I doubt the F.100s are going anywhere anytime soon. See below > Also, I understand that the DC-9s will be phased out here soon...so they > won't be getting the new pretty colors. :P Will the Airbuses...whenever > they come...replace the entire 737 and MD80 fleet then? According to the latest I've heard, Airbus now considers the USAir(ways) deal a letter of intent only. They're not cutting any metal for any of those airplanes, and my own feeling is, I doubt you'll ever see one delivered to AL. Airbus Industrie was smart enough to see the writing on the wall and not get a bunch of money tied up in USAirways right now. Unless and until they clean up their financial act, nobody's going to give them credit. > Kinda dumb if you ask me. I have grown to associate the 737 with > USAir...since they fly just about the greatest number of them. If you ask > me...the billions to be spent on 400 A-319/320/321 is dumb. Should use the > money to pick up next-gen 737s and more long range planes (767s and 777s). Boeing likes money up front. 737s are more expensive than A320s, and Airbus Industrie will finance anyone with a pulse (which leads me to my thoughts about USAirways' future..see above). Boeing sells enough airplanes to airlines with cash that they don't have to worry about financing losers or potential losers. The Airbus deal included (IIRC) some A330s in it. Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:57 From: Mihir Pramod Shah Subject: Re: US Airways Fleet Changes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech David F. Wagener wrote: > > Kinda dumb if you ask me. I have grown to associate the 737 with > USAir...since they fly just about the greatest number of them. If you ask > me...the billions to be spent on 400 A-319/320/321 is dumb. Should use the > money to pick up next-gen 737s and more long range planes (767s and 777s). Considering US Airways has no Airbus products currently, perhaps you are somewhat correct in that sense. However, from what I understand, because of Boeing's busy assembly line, Airbus was able to offer a better delivery schedule. I'm not saying that's the only reason for the US Airways Airbus order, but it probably was a factor. I wouldn't be surprised if some financing "sweeteners" were a part of the Airbus order as well. Aircraft manufacturers often do this to attract customers (not unlike what automakers do with rebates, lease deals, loans, etc.). Mihir ________________________________________________ Mihir P. Shah Email: mishah@vt.edu 244 Old Cedarfield Drive WWW: (coming soon) Blacksburg, VA 24060 Phone: (540) 961-7869 From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:57 From: "Stephen D. Todd" Subject: Re: B-777 Double Decker??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sympatico David Alan Coon wrote: > > A few years ago, POPULAR SCIENCE reported that Boeing had plans to stretch the > upper deck of the B-747 to the entire length of the aircraft, and it was this, > they said, that was to be the B-777. Imagine my spurise when I saw the photos > of the first B-777 that was put in service, when it was first introduced a > while back, a SINGLE DECKER!!!! MD also had plans for such a "SUPER JUMBO" as > I would call it. Whatever happened to the B-777 DOUBLE DECKER????forgive my > ignorance (I am a layperson who travels alot by air) is the B-777 200x or 300x > the Double Decker Super Jumbo? when will such a plane be put in service? How > will a propsed MD-BOEING MERGER affect the MD plans for the double > decker....????? Am I correct in my thinking that a B-747-400series has > replaced the traditional spiral staircase with a straight one and the cockpit > is mostly digital? I guess you missed alot of the recent banter around here... The 777 is a single deck aircraft. Future versions will feature fuse plugs that will make the aircraft longer, but alas not taller. Airbus says they are going to build the A3XX (double decker) Boeing says they aren't going to build the stretch 747-500x/600x McD D cancelled the MD-12 (double decker) late last year, shortly before they announced the Boeing merger. Interestingly enough, in the mid-1960's, Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed all bid on the C-5 contract. Lockheed of course won. Boeing took the high wing of their design, slung it under the fuse and called it the "bet your company" 747. Douglas the history books say, largely ignored the commercial aspects of the C-5 competition until it lost. In a quickie re-design they made the airplane into a low wing airliner featuring 4 engines, seats running the full length of BOTH decks, something in the range of 650 passengers and they called it the DC-10. Well as we all know the DC-10 is a single deck aircraft. Airlines, appalled at the idea of tripling their passenger loads on each flight, demurred. If you look at the cutaway of the (original) DC-10, the upper deck offers 9 abreast seating... no aisles. In those days the marketing folks at Douglas had some pretty nasty ideas of what mass transportation was all about. They've come a long way since then. -- Best Regards, Steve. From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:57 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B-777 Double Decker??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , dcoon@ksu.edu (David Alan Coon) wrote: > A few years ago, POPULAR SCIENCE reported that Boeing had plans to stretch the > upper deck of the B-747 to the entire length of the aircraft, and it was this, > they said, that was to be the B-777. Actually, the first 777 was going to be a three-engine version of the 767 with the 3rd engine in the tail 727-style. I remember seeing drawings of it when I joined Boeing in 1979. The reason for the "777" was to get a longer range 767 and to comply with the 60 minute rule on flights over the Atlantic and Pacific. With the advent of better than expected engine performance and ETOPS, the "777" was shelved. I've been told that extending the upper deck of the 747-400 any farther back would do nasty things to the airplane's handling, and so require extensive redesign of the tail surfaces among other things. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:58 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B-777 Double Decker??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , dcoon@ksu.edu (David Alan Coon) wrote: > Am I correct in my thinking that a B-747-400series has > replaced the traditional spiral staircase with a straight one and the cockpit > is mostly digital? The 747 has had a straight staircase for many years now, well before the advent of the -400. The -400 features a 2-man cockpit, and utilizes LCD flat-panel displays. The 747-400 and 777 flight decks are quite similar; however, the 777 has a more advanced fault-reporting and built-in-test-equipment (BITE) system. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:58 From: "Marc Schaeffer" Subject: Re: Airbus Prices References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Jim Keane wrote : > I am trying to find a list with Airbus aircraft prices, similar to > the Boeing list I don't know any www site which has the prices of the Airbus aircrafts. In the book "Business jets" I found the 97 prices of the following planes : A300-600 83M$ A310-300 75M$ A319-100 40M$ A320-200 45M$ A321-100 50M$ A330-200 95M$ A330-300 105M$ A340-200 110M$ A340-300 120M$ Hope this helps -- Marc SCHAEFFER, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) "The advantage of the Alzheimer disease is that every day you meet new people" -- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:58 From: Bryan Bresler Subject: Re: Boeing 767 & 757 Airfoil Data References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company David Lednicer wrote: > > Matt Ford wrote: > > I am looking for the following data for the Boeing 767 & 757 wings: > > > > ***NACA or NASA airfoil number, or a close approximation. > > ***Angle of incidince across the wing. > (clip)> > Boeing does not put their airfoil coordinates or test data in the > public domain. However, the wind tunnel test of a 737-200 is reported I've often wondered about this. Couldn't a competitor obtain coordinates for the wing, or the entire airplane, simply by parking it on a flat surface and measuring it? This probably doesn't answer the original question as Matt probably wouldn't be able to get ahold of a 767 or 757, measure it, or even get it into his garage. From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:58 From: D Snow Subject: Re: Northwest Worldplane Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 9 Apr 1997, Mike Neus wrote: > Does anybody have, or know of a URL that shows, a picture of Northwest's > 'Worldplane'? If your not familiar with it, its a 747-400 decorated with > children's artwork to celebrate Northwest's 50th aniversary of service in the > Pacific. You'd think there would be a picture at the Northwest web site, > but...NOT! A picture of 6310 that I got from a friend of mine who works at NW Media Relations is located at: http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie/nwafleet/nwimages/ship6310.jpg ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie (Currently INOP) From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:58 From: Thomas R Turton Subject: Re: Fuel data and specific fuel consumption References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hughes Training Inc. Joel Grasmeyer wrote: > > I am looking for some information on the fuel used in large commercial > transports such as the 777 and 747. > > What fuel or fuels are typically used, and what is the density and the > current price? Dan Raymer's book provides some data, but only for > aviation gasoline, JP-4, JP-5, and JP-8. > > Also, what is the specific fuel consumption of a 747 and/or 777? > > Thanks, Joel, This is NOT an area I am current in, but will offer what little I can in hopes that someone more knowledgeable will post any corrections/additions. Density/weight of fuel varies with temperature. Commercial fuels (at least when I was up to speed on them) are approximately similar to the JP fuels as follows: Jet A ~ JP-5 Jet B ~ JP-4 (Do they even still go by Jet A & B anymore?). From my handy-dandy P&W Aeronautical Vestpocket Handbook: Fuel Specific Gravity at degC Spec Wt (lb/U.S. gal) --------------------------------------------------------------- JP-4 0.785 6.55 JP-5 0.817 15 6.82 Jet A 0.808 15 6.74 JP-8 is approximately the same as JP-5, from my understanding (using Lockheed weight and balance data for an F-16 in which they treat JP-4 as 6.5 lb/gal and JP-5,JP-8 as 6.8 lb/gal). Don't have it handy at work, but will try and dig up more info at home from Jan Roskam's Design books - have you checked these? Email me back if you still need more info, and if I can find some, I'll forward it to you. ---Tom Turton Hughes Training, Inc Arlington, TX (another Hokie, BS AOE, class of '78) From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:58 From: "Carl Peters, M.D." Subject: Re: It's not a coincidence cargo door fits evidence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc barry@corazon.com wrote: > So right, I understand, how can a guy in a converted garage with a > personal computer and phone line figure something out that has eluded the > professional aviation investigating teams of four countries who have spent > years and millions of dollars? Easy, actually, but for our discussion > let's say he can't. But the guy, who has 40 years of flying experience, > available time because he is financially independent, desire because he > was survivor of a flaming, night, fatal jet airplane crash, access because > he has the internet, and most important, wisdom because of hindsight of > twelve years of successive accidents; the guy, me, can convince/persuade > you that the cargo door is a worthy line of investigation for the crash > cause of TWA 800. That's all, a worthy line of investigation; after all, > they have checked out natural gas bubbles, missiles, bombs, space debris, > and fires. Asking NTSB to check out a known killer of nine who was near > the scene of the crime and left first after the crime was committed is > not... is not...weird. To not investigate cargo door is strange. It is amazing how you have more knowledge than hundreds of investigators schooled in many disciplines, and without the benefit of examining the evidence. Narcissism at its best. > It's not a coincidence that: > > The cargo door theory explains the steak because the event happened when > the plane was in the correct sun angle and time for the fuselage to > reflect sun to observers on the ground. At any other 23 hours and 30 > minutes of the day, it could not be said the streak was door because the > sun angle would be wrong or non existent. But, at 8:31PM on July 17th near > NYC the sun angle was perfect for door to reflect sunlight as it spun > away. It's no coincidence; it's cause and effect. A light streak is specific for nothing other than a reflective surface. Furthermore, a spinning object will reflect light in a pulsatile manner, not a constant streak as described by witnesses. No cause and effect. > The cargo door theory explains the mysterious radar blip because the > spinning metal cargo door with fuselage skin attached would reflect > primary radar at that distance, just like it did with the DC-10 cargo door > and the UAL 811 cargo door departures. The two blips on the radar plot > without transponder display are a P-3 and the cargo door. It's no > coincidence; it's cause and effect. A radar blip is not specific - any debris of enough size from the aircraft can cause the same return. As before, not a shred of evidence here, but then again, you know more than the civilian and military radar specialists in the investigation. No cause and effect. > The cargo door theory explains the sudden loud sound on the CVR because > when the door departs an explosive decompression occurs which causes a > very loud sound, just like it did on UAL 811 according to the passengers > who survived. It's no coincidence; it's cause and effect. Decompression and noise will come from the fuselage breakup regardless of cause. Again, not a shred of specifity towards a cargo door 'signature'. No cause and effect. > The cargo door theory explains the abrupt power cut because the power to > the FDR and transponder was cut when the nose was severed by the 300 knot > CAS force crumpling the nose into the absent cargo door hole. It's no > coincidence; it's cause and effect. The fuselage broke up, power was cut. All the theories fit here. Again, not a shred of specifity. No cause and effect. > The cargo door theory explains the missing bodies because the passengers > are sucked out the hole caused by the departing cargo door and attached > fuselage skin and into the number three engine leaving parts of human > remains inside, just like UAL 811. It's no coincidence; it's cause and > effect. Were human remains found in engine #3? Cargo door parts? News to me. Even so, the evidence of a door failure is where when the whole fuselage is breaking up? No cause and effect. > The cargo door theory explains why number three engine catches fire and > lands separately from the other three engines because baggage from the > cargo hold is ejected into number three engine which becomes Fodded, > catches fire, vibrates, fuse bolts shear as designed, and engine falls > away on fire before other three engines are involved. It's no coincidence; > it's cause and effect. Wait. So you are privy to info stating that baggage debris was found in the #3 engine, along with humans and cargo door parts? And this proves a failure? Baggage can't enter during the initial breakup? Has to be the door, huh? No cause and effect in a drug free world. > The cargo door theory explains the fireball when baggage from the cargo > hold is ejected into number three engine which becomes Fodded, catches > fire, vibrates, fuse bolts shear as designed, and engine falls away on > fire into disintegrating wing, fuel vapor and air, igniting fireball. It's > no coincidence; it's cause and effect. Again, you state cause and effect - you list a possible sequence of events, yet not a bit of evidence from your investigation. And you call this 'cause and effect'? In psychiatry, it is known as 'flight of ideas'. > The cargo door theory explains why the aft cargo door is found intact and > the forward door in pieces because the forward door opens up, out, and > away, striking fuselage and breaking into pieces, just like UAL 811. It's > no coincidence; it's cause and effect. Since the fuselage fractured in many places during the breakup, and parts were falling off, explain to the newsgroup how this proves the cargo door started the sequence. What evidence? Again, no cause and effect. > The cargo door theory explains the debris pattern which shows forward > cargo hold material ejected first, then detached nose falling in dense > area, and rest of fuselage and wing and tail falling in scattered area > miles later. It's no coincidence; it's cause and effect. This is tiresome. Again, what evidence points to the cargo door as causing this pattern? Any fuse breakup where the fore fuselage breaks up first will do the same thing. Such as in Lockerbie. No cause and effect. > The cargo door theory explains it all because it is what happened; the > other theories just fit a few of the important evidence clues and don't > work for the others.(snip) >John Barry Smith And this is where it all comes together and sheds light on the author's credibility. He states "it is what happened" - the ego working over substance. What the author implies is that he has more insight and knowledge of this accident without studying the wreckage, without needing metallurgical study, without aircraft investigation training, without radar training, without many years of training to become a pathologist trained in seeking clues from autopsies, without formal systems training on the 747-100, without interviewing the witnesses, controllers, and other people related to the crash directly, without investigating the victim's families, businesses, acquaintences, affiliations, finances, etc., without studying Boeing files on precedent cases, without knowledge of explosives and fuels, and on and on. To hell with thousands working on this case, and their long hours. To hell with their emotions when having to identify the victims, and look the families in the eye and tell them 'sorry, but we're still looking'. To hell with their years of experience dedicated specifically to aircrash investigation. Instead of the long hours of dedicated work by thousands, wouldn't they be happier sitting in their garage plugged into the internet and writing conspiracy crap? Even if the cargo door is a culprit, Mr. Smith has proven nothing, is in no position to prove anything, and instead has exhibited arrogance in addition to severely insulting thousands tied to this case. Carl Peters, M.D. Captain, USAF From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:58 From: Tom Atkinson Subject: Re: It's not a coincidence cargo door fits evidence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: high degree thereof, thanks to Linux barry@corazon.com wrote: > So right, I understand, how can a guy in a converted garage with a > personal computer and phone line figure something out that has eluded the > professional aviation investigating teams of four countries who have spent > years and millions of dollars? Easy, actually, ... Tell us how; we're very interested. > The cargo door theory explains the abrupt power cut because the power to > the FDR and transponder was cut when the nose was severed by the 300 knot > CAS force crumpling the nose into the absent cargo door hole. It's no ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ > coincidence; it's cause and effect. You have a vivid imagination. Your website talks of 300 knot air "rushing into" the aircraft, causing the breakup. Anybody with a reasonable knowledge of aerodynamics knows that a hole in the side of an aircraft, pressurised or not, will cause a suction effect, where the air inside is sucked out. It is the same principle that causes a wing to generate lift. As for the "crumpling of the nose...", you obviously have little knowledge of aircraft structure failure modes. > The cargo door theory explains it all because it is what happened; the > other theories just fit a few of the important evidence clues and don't > work for the others. How does the cargo door theory fit in with the fact that, according to the NTSB, the explosion originated INSIDE the centre fuel tank? > And that's where you come in to request that the taxpayers get a proper > investigation into reasonable, happened before, mechanical cause for an > airplane crash, the cargo door. We will be told the full story if you > press for a worthy line of investigation into the number one category of > scheduled airlines crashes, mechanical fault generally and in this > specific instance, cargo door fault. "Mechanical fault" is NOT the number one category of crashes. At the moment, CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) is on top. > Is the story worth it? Well, it does involve Canada, France, Britain, > USA, Libya, India, Ireland, and New Zealand; literally billions of > dollars, thousands of lives, or I should say, 838 dead plus bereaved > families, and the future of commercial aviation in America. Literally, I > exaggerate not. I suggest that you ARE exaggerating. If the cargo door was at fault, the investigators would have noticed by now. I suggest that you post to alt.conspiracies.twa800 in future. tom@tyco.net.au From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:59 From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Gimli 767 nose gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. In article , croydon@vianet.on.ca (Greg Croydon) wrote: >>Larry Stone (lstone@interserve.com) wrote: No I didn't. I wrote what the following was replying to. Pleas watch your attributions. >> I need a little clarification here. First, how much lift can the >>wings produce at 10 knots? Not enough, I suspect, to keep the plane >>from tipping over while perched on one landing gear--unless there was >>quite a headwind.... > >In reply to the frist part. The wings stopped 'working' a long time -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:59 From: banks.85@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dan Banks) Subject: Re: Gimli 767 nose gear References: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University In article croydon@vianet.on.ca (Greg Croydon) writes: >>Larry Stone (lstone@interserve.com) wrote: >> I need a little clarification here. First, how much lift can the >>wings produce at 10 knots? Not enough, I suspect, to keep the plane >>from tipping over while perched on one landing gear--unless there was >>quite a headwind.... >In reply to the frist part. The wings stopped 'working' a long time >ago, specially if the ground activated spoilers extended on landing. >Interestingly enough, the nose wheel does not come crashing down >because the wings stop working. Possibly the total effect of the >airframe and the still-flying tail work to produce some lift which >enables the pilot the control the lowering of the nose. I know I can >do it on the DC9-32 down to about 40 KIAS. How far are the mains from the aerodynamic center of the wing? I have a feeling that the pitching moment created by the wing is much more important that the lift it creates in this situation. An even more important effect would be the moment imparted by the elevator. Dan Banks From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:59 From: Stu Bruins Subject: Re: Gimli Glider References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hooked Online Services eaustin@visionary-solutions.com wrote:<> UAL DC-8 in PDX, mid 70's, Captain's name McBroom. Most survived. Ran out of gas while trying to decide if his gear was down, hit a row of empty houses. Stu Bruins From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:59 From: doering@xrayspex.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Doering) Subject: Re: Gimli Glider References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kraft durch Spargelkohl In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>Are there any other instances of a commercial airliner running out of >>fuel mid-flight? I know of the Avianco 707 inbound JFK, any others? > >There's also the Overseas National Airways DC-9-33F (operating an ALM >Dutch Antillean Airlines flight) which ran out of fuel and ditched in >the Caribbean on May 2, 1970. Don't forget the United Airlines DC-8-61 that went down 6 nm from the runway threshold at Portland (Oregon) International Airport on December 28, 1978. The crew became preoccupied with a landing gear problem, and spent more than an hour holding near the airport while they tried to troubleshoot the problem and prepared the passengers for an emergency landing. ljd From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:59 From: shampoo@ite.net (shampoo) Subject: Re: TWA radar image of cargo door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Please explain how UA811 returned safely to Hawaii, while TW800 fell >into the ocean when allegedly the same thing happened. Please explain how once when I fell down the stairs I broke my arm, and another time I didn't. The fact that two aircraft reacted differently to a similar phenomenon, given altitude, speed, atmospheric condititions and other measures which certainly would have varied between JFK and HNL, is not too hard to believe. Excuse me while I run downstairs....:) From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:59 From: no@junk.mail (Mike Neus) Subject: Re: TWA radar image of cargo door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Instruments In article , swestin@ford.com says... >In article barry@corazon.com writes: >> The forward cargo door was seen by primary radar and human eyes as it >> departed TWA 800. It left first of all the pieces to go, and landed >> closest to the takeoff point. The door has failed before. The effect of >> departing caused an explosive decompression which was recorded on the >> cockpit voice recorder as a sudden loud sound just before an abrupt power >> cut. The cut occurred when the nose separated from the rest of the body by >> the force of the 300 knot slipstream crumpling the nose into the cargo >> door hole caused crease. > >Please explain how UA811 returned safely to Hawaii, while TW800 fell >into the ocean when allegedly the same thing happened. Not only that, but he faults Pan Am 103 to a faulty cargo door when a bomb blew it out of the sky. Just another troll at work... -- Because the junk mailers of the world think my address is their play thing, my e-mail address will not be revealed. Thank the junk mailers for ruining the internet. From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:59 From: benjadp@mail.auburn.edu (David P Benjamin) Subject: Re: TWA radar image of cargo door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Auburn University Usenet Server Stephen Westin (swestin@ford.com) wrote: : In article barry@corazon.com writes: : : > The forward cargo door was seen by primary radar and human eyes as it : > departed TWA 800. It left first of all the pieces to go, and landed : > closest to the takeoff point. The door has failed before. The effect of : > departing caused an explosive decompression which was recorded on the : > cockpit voice recorder as a sudden loud sound just before an abrupt power : > cut. The cut occurred when the nose separated from the rest of the body by : > the force of the 300 knot slipstream crumpling the nose into the cargo : > door hole caused crease. : Please explain how UA811 returned safely to Hawaii, while TW800 fell : into the ocean when allegedly the same thing happened. That is fairly easy to explain. The UA pilot wasn't in autopilot and didn't fight the plane. The TWA pilot might have. Or the plane's structure might have had subtle differences that account for it. I can believe a nonlinear event can produce radically different results. There are problems with the cargo door theory. The missing passengers are from rows 17-19. Those rows are behind the second starboard passenger door and several rows behind the cargo door. The missing UA passengers were directly above the cargo door. And then there's the needless attempt to explain everything with the cargo door theory. The radar anomaly has no relation at all to TWA800. It's well away from the aircraft and moving laterally faster than the 747. It's not a cargo door. -- David Benjamin http://www.duc.auburn.edu/~benjadp Home of the USS Alabama Tour and Sea Power in SouthEast Asia Spam reported to ISPs and/or US Fraud hotline. Inquire within. From kls Wed Apr 16 01:55:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Apr 97 01:55:59 From: barry@corazon.com Subject: Re: TWA radar image of cargo door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Red Shift Internet Services In article , swestin@ford.com (Stephen Westin ) wrote: > Please explain how UA811 returned safely to Hawaii, while TW800 fell > into the ocean when allegedly the same thing happened. Please explain how Pan Am Flight 125 in March 1987 had a door open and it did not tear off like UAL 811 but stayed open two inches, plane did not pressurize and returned and landed. AD 88-12-04 was written to stop the door from opening but not implemented on UAL 811 which also had door open but two things did not not happen, the nose did not crumple into door hole crease like AI 182, PA 103, and TWA 800, and the door did not stay open two inches like PA 125 but opened up, out, and away taking skin and nine passengers with it. There was a one second delay from door opening to door tearing away for UAL 811, that may have been enough to let some of the pressurization to equalize and therefore less skin was torn away when door did go thereby nose was slightly less weakened and stayed on, or the aircraft was younger by 20000 hours and stronger, or as the pilot said to explain nose staying on, "I just came off autopilot and did not fight the airplane." The destructive force is the 300 knot slipstream, this is not a gondola under a balloon whose hatch blows, this is a severely damaged aircraft in twice hurricane force winds. When door opens in flight different things happen depending on altitude and sequence of faulty opening. And there is a whole page on the thousand page wrecksite www.corazon.com that explains in detail, "Door goes, nose goes?" Thank you for your interest in aviaton safety. John Barry Smith -- www.corazon.com From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:12 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Concorde Life (was Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 16 Apr 97 01:55:57 , alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) wrote: >>Not expand, but retire. > >>In 2005, the "entire" fleet will all be well over 30 years old, and will >>all have significantly exceeded the original design life (which is where >>some of the aircraft stand right now, hence the current "relife" program >>by BAe at Bristol). Parts are a problem even now (I think two items, >>one BA, one AF, are effectively grounded for cannibalization). > >>That said, BA/BAe may find ways to extend the fleet's life still further >>so that in 2005 they are still flying; but the original article was >>talking about current expectations (three years ago it was generally >>considered unlikely that Concorde would fly past 2000). > >Flight magazine, in Feb 1996, had a short article about Concorde. Based on >that article, I don't think any of the aircraft have reached their original >design life yet. Flight quotes the figure of 6700 reference flights as the >current airframe life, with BA's lead aircraft at 5900 flights, and Air >France not expecting its lead aircraft to reach 6700 till 2005. A "reference flight" for a Concorde is defined as a supersonic transatlantic flight with a take-off weight in excess of a certain number. This basically means that BA is conducting at least 4 reference flights per day, every day (although that drops to 2 during August). Assuming that they use the entire fleet (which I've heard isn't necessarily so; at least one is usually inop due to parts cannibalization), that means that each airframe accumulates just over 200 reference flights per year. So BA's lead aircraft will hit the witching number in October 1999... >Where does 6700 come from? Flight says: "The original design life was 24000 >flights." I believe the figure of 6700 is based on dividing the number of >test cycles on the fatigue rig (20000) by a 'safety factor' of 3, and is >not related directly to the design life. > >In the article, Air France were quoted as saying they will keep Concorde in >service for another 20 years. The article comments that the CAA and DGAC had >approved, in principle, an increase in the life of Concordes to 8500 >reference flights, which will be sufficient to keep BAs youngest Concorde in >service till around 2014. This extension was the result of extraordinary examination of BA's "lead dog" (which I dimly recall as being G-BOAB, but the cobwebs are thick up there), by BAe Bristol, which concluded that the hull appreciated the hot and dry conditions it experiences at 55,000 feet and mach 2. >I'll probably retire before it does! Unfortunately, parts are getting tougher and tougher to find. The thing DOES have a 1960's "fly by wire" system... >Alex (NOT speaking for Eurocontrol) Malc. From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:13 From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: <5j8d2o$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frontier Internet Services On 18 Apr 1997 14:04:05 -0400, eric@infoboard.be (Eric) wrote: >This begs to ask, however, what will happen to SIA's current flights to >JFK via Amsterdam and Frankfurt which are, I'm told, quite >profitable. Moreover, a recent in-house study said most passengers would >rather take a one-stop flight than a non-stop one if the non-stop flight >would be over 15 hours. Could we therefore see non-stop flights on some >days and one-stop flights on others, via Europe, or a longer term solution >which would offer two flights a day (not necessarily every day), both >operated with a B777 or A340 instead of the current B747-400 to New York ? When you say non-stop, I presume you mean trans-Pacific flights from, say, the west coast of America to Singapore as I'm sure that the 777-200X will not be able to fly non-stop from the east coast unless, perhaps, SIA can get a direct, polar route and GPS navigation. And won't flying westwards to America still require a stop en-route? Indeed, SIA is keen to extend its SIN-LHR service to JFK. It seems to me that one of the choices for passengers will one day be between flying trans-Pacific from the west cost one-stop (if they can't stand a very long non-stop flight) or non-stop in a 777-200X/A340-500X. From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:13 From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frontier Internet Services On 15 Apr 97 03:22:40 , Alan Wong wrote: >I too don't think A340-500X/600X will be launched. If the A340-600X is not launched, then Airbus will have a big hole in its product range between the A340-300 and the A3XX (I'm making an assumption that the latter will be launched). One possibility, though, would be to develop a shrink of the A3XX to compete in the 400+ seat market. Airbus must launch either the A340-600 or the A3XX if it wants that 50% share of the market. To do neither would make Boeing even more dominant. From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:13 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Andrew Chuang wrote on Tue Apr 15 12:48:50 1997:- > Airbus was aware of > the B747-100/200 replacement market as early as in 1990. They pitched > stretched A330-400/A340-400 to airlines like Cathay Pacific. Unfortunatly > for Airbus, they didn't have the right design. Cathay chose the B777-300, > and the rest is history. It won't be cheap for Airbus to come up with > a competitive A330-400. I was on a Cathay flight last week, and it was announced that they are buying 7 B777-300s, 1 A330-400, and 6 A340-400s, with options on a number of other aircraft. [Moderator's note - those Airbus models are -300s; there are no -400s as of yet. Karl] I *think* I have the right figures and model numbers, but it was just flashed up on screen for a few seconds, and I wasn't taking notes. Anyway, it looks as though Cathay are keen to keep both Boeing and Airbus in business! :-) Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:13 From: "elysium" Subject: Re: DC-9 hole References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Internet Africa McElravy wrote in article ... > On the last discussion of "stupid DC-9 tricks" (we were picking on Air > Canada I believe) someone asked what the hole in the base of the fin was > for. The question was never answered and I forgot on it until I had > occasion to fly on a few (NW) over Easter. As I was sitting in the gate > area I noticed the hole and remembered the discussion. If you'll excuse the expression it is colloquially known as the "Cows Arse" --- and is a ram air and/or static intake for cooling air to the air conditioning pack heat exchangers. It is also the main supply of cabin ventilation air should the engine and auxillary air supplies be isolated for smoke contamination or the like. Personally, I find it aesthetically pleasing when compared to Boeing or Airbus square gills that are usually hidden anyway under the belly. It is de-iced by 8th stage engine compressor air which exhausts over the vertical fin. -- >From : elysium@iafrica.com From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:14 From: James Buongiovanni Subject: Re: DC-9 hole References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberHighway Internet Services McElravy wrote: > > On the last discussion of "stupid DC-9 tricks" (we were picking on Air > Canada I believe) someone asked what the hole in the base of the fin was > for. The question was never answered and I forgot on it until I had > occasion to fly on a few (NW) over Easter. As I was sitting in the gate > area I noticed the hole and remembered the discussion. The hole is where the air goes in for the primary and secondary heat exchangers. The APU intake is on the bottom of the APU, A switch in the cockpit must be placed in the "Ram" position to open the door in flight. Hope this was of help.... From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:14 From: nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: DC-9 hole References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom D Snow wrote: >I think the hole is an air inlet for the rudder load limiter. I know that >is not the official DC9 terminology for the device, but that is what the >hole serves, I think. The bellows that operates the rudder limiter takes air from an array of slots just forward of the tailcone at about the 10:00 position on the fuselage when looking forward. The hole in question is the intake for the air conditioning pack heat exchangers, and once it passes by the hot engine air is dumped overboard. Neil - nw@ix.netcom.com From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:14 From: nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: DC-9 hole References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom swestin@ford.com (Stephen Westin ) wrote: >An inexpert guess: air intake for the APU. I believe it lives in the >tail, as on a 747. Nope, the APU intake is on the bottom of the tail, just forward of the airstairs, and the exhaust is above the RH pylon. Neil - nw@ix.netcom.com From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:14 From: Dale.T@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: DC-9 hole References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom McElravy wrote: > > On the last discussion of "stupid DC-9 tricks" (we were picking on Air > Canada I believe) someone asked what the hole in the base of the fin was > for. The question was never answered and I forgot on it until I had > occasion to fly on a few (NW) over Easter. As I was sitting in the gate > area I noticed the hole and remembered the discussion. I'm assuming you're referring to the intake hole at the base of the vertical stab? That would be the intake for the heat exchangers to the air cycle machines(air conditioning packs). Also delivers air to the left heat exchanger gnd.cooling fan if on the ground. The probe half way up the vertical is for the rudder throw limiter(based on airspeed)and the flt. data recorder. The inlet for the apu is on the lower surface of the A/c forward of the tail skid(a.k.a. Aux.gear) From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:14 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: DC-9 hole References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com McElravy wrote: > > On the last discussion of "stupid DC-9 tricks" (we were picking on Air > Canada I believe) someone asked what the hole in the base of the fin was > for. The question was never answered and I forgot on it until I had > occasion to fly on a few (NW) over Easter. As I was sitting in the gate > area I noticed the hole and remembered the discussion. The hole at the base of the vert, stab on a DC-9 is a ram air inlet for cooling air for the a/c pack heat exchangers. There is also a pair of fans. If i remember correctly the right pack fan draws air from the inside of the area aft of the p-dome and the left pack draws air in from outside. When ram air pressure is sufficient to overcome fan pressure in the plenum then a flapper door opens allowing this air to flow. The APU inlet is in the bottom of the area aft of the p-dome. I can not for the life of me remember where the rudder travel limiter gets its airspeed input on the DC-9. -Seth To replay remove the ".nospam" from my address. From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:14 From: "Svein-Harald Jensen" Subject: Re: DC-9 hole References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home D Snow wrote in article ... > I think the hole is an air inlet for the rudder load limiter. I know that > is not the official DC9 terminology for the device, but that is what the > hole serves, I think. The lower hole (the biggest) is an air inlet for the airco heat exchanger. The tube midway up on the fin is for the rudder limiter and the flight recorder. From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:14 From: "Svein-Harald Jensen" Subject: Re: DC-9 hole References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Stephen Westin wrote in article ... > An inexpert guess: air intake for the APU. I believe it lives in the > tail, as on a 747. The APU has a separate door on the underside of the fuselage, which opens when the apu is started. And yes, the apu lives in the tail, under the aft stairway. From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:14 From: "Larry Nebron" Subject: FMS Approach? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dell Computer Corporation What is an FMS Approach? For SFO it is not published in the Jep or NOS. Thanks Larry From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:14 From: John Harvie Subject: AN 124s to land at Windsor, ONT 4/22-23 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Davox Corporation Reply-To: jharvie@davox.com For airliners members eager to catch a glimpse of the world's largest aircraft: Press release from Ford mentions that two Antonov AN 124 aircraft will be landing at Windsor Airport (Ontario, Canada) Tuesday, April 22 at 7:45 AM, and again Wednesday, April 23. Purpose of the landings are to deliver a new transfer machine used for machining engine blocks at Ford's Windsor engine plant. Humorous note: after mentioning the AN 124 is "the world's largest aircraft," the press release goes on to say they are "the largest to land at Windsor in the 69-year history of Windsor Airport." No, really? :-) From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:14 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: AN 124s to land at Windsor, ONT 4/22-23 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Humorous note: after mentioning the AN 124 is "the world's largest >aircraft," the press release goes on to say ... That seems to be a somewhat common -- and erroneous -- comment by the press. By nearly any metric except tail height, the An-124 is easily bested by its bigger, six-engined sibling, the An-225. But by several other metrics of "largest" the 747-400 also beats it (MGTOW, length) as does the C-5B Galaxy (length). The following figures are from last year's AW&ST Aerospace Source Book except for the MGTOW of the 747-400F (which was clearly erroneous in the AW&ST reference and was instead taken from Boeing's web page) and the weight figures for the An-124 (taken from the article in Airways' Sep/Oct 1996 issue). Weights are in pounds, the other dimensions are in feet. Type MGTOW Wing Span Length Height Max Payload ---- ----- --------- ------ ------ ----------- An-225 1,320,000 285 253 59.3 550,000 An-124 864,200 232 223 69.1 330,700* C-5B 837,000 222.8 247.8 65.1 261,000 747-400F 875,000 211.4 231.8 63.7 257,660 * Certificated payload; restricted to 264,560 lbs in normal operations due to impact of higher payload weight on both range and life of the airframe. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:14 From: pfkeb@hpkaon.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Paul F. Kunz) Subject: 777 short take-off? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Reply-To: Paul_Kunz@slac.stanford.edu I recently took a UA 777-200 IGW flight from SFO to LHR. Unlike other overseas flights on variety of a/c from SFO, we used a shorter runway (one pointing towards Oakland). Does the 777 have a short take-off capablity compared to other long range a/c? -- Paul F. Kunz Paul_Kunz@slac.stanford.edu (NeXT mail ok) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University Voice: (415) 926-2884 (NeXT) Fax: (415) 926-3587 From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:15 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 777 short take-off? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > I recently took a UA 777-200 IGW flight from SFO to LHR. Unlike >other overseas flights on variety of a/c from SFO, we used a shorter >runway (one pointing towards Oakland). Does the 777 have a short >take-off capablity compared to other long range a/c? Even close to max weight, the 777-200IGW gets off the ground with remarkable alacrity -- at least with both engines producing thrust. With the loss of an engine at V1, I suspect performance might be a lot closer to a 747 in similar circumstances. A more likely explanation for departing on runway 1R would be winds from the north. (1L is barely adequate for transcon flights even with good headwinds and a light load; I'd be *very* surprised to see any overseas flight use 1L.) With the right winds, even trans-Pacific 747 flights can depart on 1R. -- 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 Apr 23 02:58:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:15 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: Super 80 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Yesterday I was flying home from DFW on American Airlines. I was seat at the wings leading edge of a MD83. I was looking out the window and noticed a placard that was about 1 foot any from the owerwing exit non-skid. It looked like a Delta wing shape and was striped. Does anyone know what is placard is for. Thanks David From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:15 From: tjotoole@bit-net.com (Thomas O'Toole) Subject: Re: Overheard on channel 9 ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Av8r Images In article , Andy.Goldfinger@jhuapl.edu says... > >Recently, on a United flight, I was listening to channel 9 (cockpit >communications). An airliner of unknown type was cleared to FL 410. It >then requested that it be sent no higher that 390. The controller asked >why: "don't you have the performance for 410?" "Yes," came the reply, >"but not in the light chop that is reported there." > >Could someone explain what was going on here? Is FL 410 so close to the >service ceiling that a little chop (and presumably some gusts from the >rear) are problematic? At those altitudes the margin between lowspeed buffet and highspeed buffet is rather low offten a spread of less than 100 Kts. It could have been that at their weight their Va(turbulent air penetration) speed was close enough to the low speed buffet that the captain was wary. Tom http://www.bit-net.com/~tjotoole Av8r Images Airline, Corporate and General Aviation Photographs http://www.bit-net.com/~tjotoole/photos.htm From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:15 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Materials testing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Tom Keesling wrote: > > Could anyone point me in the direction for finding materials testing > procedures in the aerospace industry? I am particulary interested in > 316L stainless, aluminum and titanium. I am in the orthopedic fixator > business, and would like to test these devices for cracks. An "orthopedic fixator" is presumably one of those sets of plates, screws and other stuff used to pin together fractured bones, right? In 1977 I wrote off my bike and nearly myself in a head-on collision with a car, followed by a quick double-somersault over the roof. Among my multiple injuries was a compound fracture of the mid-femur, which was set using a "Kunchner nail". This is a long metal rod with an "omega" shaped cross-section, which is inserted down the entire length of the marrow cavity of the femur, leaving half an inch protuding from the top of the bone (but covered by flesh, of course) to facilitate removal once the bone has regrown in a couple of months' time. Came the day I was due to have the nail out, and the surgeon waved a radiograph under my nose showing only a very flimsy regrowth, and sent me home. A few weeks later, I was strolling along the street with a friend when I felt an agonising pain in my thigh. My friend half-carried me to his car and drove me to the hospital, where the X-ray revealed that the pin itself had completely sheared at the point of the original fracture. The bone had not reformed, and the pin alone had been supporting my weight for several months. Result: a new pin (I keep the broken one as a souvenir) and a bone graft to ensure proper regrowth this time. My question to Tom is: Am I the only person apart from Robocop to have been hospitalized due to metal fatigue? :-) Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:15 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Can an Airbus 320/321/330/340 perform a controlled glide? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In response to my statement: >>In the event of loss of all 5 computers in the Electrical Flight >>Control System (EFCS) the crew can control pitch by moving the >>Trimmable Horizontal Stabiliser (THS) using the pitch trim >>wheels, and yaw (and roll to some extent) by operating the rudder >>via the pedals. Connection to both of these surfaces is mechanical Robert Dorsett wrote on Tue Apr 15 21:47:47 1997:- >A minor quibble. These "mechanical" linkages lead to hydraulic actuators. >There is no "stick-to-surface" reversion mode. This is different from the >normal modes of operation, which use electrical signals which have first >been processed by computers to command the hydraulic actuators. > >In this respect, the "fly-by-wire" merely replaces the control cable >linkages found in non-FBW aircraft, and none of the hydraulic plumbing. Quite right! I should have been more precise. This is one reason why I dislike the term "fly-by-wire" and try not to use it these days, preferring the term "fly-by-computer" for aircraft of the A320/330/340 and B777 generations. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:15 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Can an Airbus 320/321/330/340 perform a controlled glide? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In response to me:- >>In the event of loss of all 5 computers in the Electrical Flight >>Control System (EFCS) the crew can control pitch by moving the >>Trimmable Horizontal Stabiliser (THS) using the pitch trim >>wheels, and yaw (and roll to some extent) by operating the rudder >>via the pedals. Gary S. James wrote on Tue Apr 15 22:03:25 1997:- > I fly A-320's for a major US airline and as part of our training we > area required to "fly" the airplane using these backup modes. I assure > you, that from a practical point of view the airplane is virtually > uncontrollable in this mode and would be incapable of making anything > remotely resembling a controlled landing. Interesting! My understanding is that "manual back-up" is intended solely to enable the aircraft to be controlled temporarily (and for a short time) in cruise, to allow time for the EFCS to be restarted. However, I believe that for certification purposes, it was required that a landing under mechanical back-up be demonstrated. I have heard that this was done on a test flight in Toulouse, and that the test aircraft went through a short final approach, but did not actually land. I have also heard that crews are trained in "manual" landings on simulators. Any definitive information on the above "things I have heard" would be welcome. Gary added:- > Additionally, there has been one instance where all flight computers > were turned off momentarily in flight. Panic ensued... and the > aircraft nearly went out of control. Any details about this incident? Again I have heard that on one occasion, both ELACs were lost due to an overheating problem, but that still leaves the three SECs, and only causes reversion to "direct law" (i.e., the stick commands the surface positions directly, as in conventional aircraft). No total loss of EFCS has ever been reported. So, what were the guys playing at in the incident you mentioned? How did they lose all five boxes? The buttons for each of the 5 EFCS computers are in the overhead panel (unguarded): push once for off, and again for on. *Accidentally* hitting five separate buttons seems an unlikely scenario. Power failure would only do it if it were total (since the two ELACs are on different sides regarding power supply, and the three SECs are also spread over the two sides). Each box (ELAC and SEC) is dual channel ("command" channel and "monitoring" channel). Any mismatch between the outputs of the two channels will shut down the box. (The remaining boxes then automatically reconfigure themselves to cope with the loss.) There is therefore the possibility of a transient (hardware or software) failure shutting down a box, but 5 *independent* transients on each of the boxes?? There remains the possibility that the failures were not independent, e.g., they might have been due to similar software bugs. Now that would be *really* interesting ... Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:15 From: michael@cs.tu-berlin.de (Michael Baldamus) Subject: Re: Mid-air collision over Charki Dadri References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany Marc SCHAEFFER (marcmsc@hotmail.com) wrote: : Are there already any conclusions of the 12-Nov-96 Mid-air collision : between the Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 747-168B and the Air Kazakstan : Ilyushin 76TD over Charki Dadri(India) ? I would like to follow up on this question. Is it true that the Saudi crew was responsible for the crash? I have heard this rumor from a, well, Russian friend. He also made an interesting remark about the pilots of the Ilyushin 76TD: As it was a transport aircraft, he said, the pilots were probably former members of the Soviet air force and should have been very experienced indeed. The reason he gave was the frequent approaches on Kabul during the Afghan war which took place under the threat of Stinger rockets fired by Mudjahedin. Rumors, of course, and war time approaches may be different altogether from finding one's way through a crowded civilian airspace, but then again I hope somebody will now feel provoked to give an informative answer to the initial question: What was the reason for the Charki Dadri mid-air collision? Michael Baldamus computer science department Berlin University of Technology From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:15 From: "Darren Rhodes" Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University matt weber wrote in article ... > 6), Will such an aircraft be built? My own suspicion is yes, but in order to > make it attractive, it is not going to be anytime soon, and it will not look > anything at all like the current generation of aircraft. The current > regulatory environment places severe requirements on the stability of > commercial aircraft. We make the aircraft stable by putting drag in the right > places. It makes the aircraft stable, it also does nasty things to the overall > aerodynamic efficiency of the airframe. It > should come as no surprise that it is likely that the most aerodynamically > efficient aircraft are likely to be aircraft that are inherently unstable. > That kind of tradeoff is acceptable at the moment in military aircraft such as > the F117 and B2. It is not acceptable in a commercial passenger liner > today. A brief review of the B2 versus the B1 is quite enlightening, and > suggest that a super jumbo in the form of a blended wing, or flying wing might > be very attractive. The B1 and B2 have similar payload capacities as best I > can tell, however the B2 probably flies further, and weighs about 140,000 > pounds less. By civilian standards, the B2 engines are very inefficient. > (Specfic fuel consumption is quoted as .66, a CFM56 engine used on an A319 is > quoted as .31.This at least suggests to me that such an aircraft design with > high efficiency engines might be capable of substantially improved operating > costs over any current civilian design. Sorry, just a small point but I think the two engine SFC's you quote are for different flight regimes. The best engine around today (GE90) has a cruise SFC of around 0.52lb/hr/lb. The Pratt 4084 and RR Trent 800 are nearer 0.55lb/hr/lb. Second generation bypass engines JT9D, RB211 had values around 0.59-0.62, whilst the JT3D (B707) and JT8D have values over 0.7. The point made is correct, that engine technology is maturing and hence fuel consumption will not be significantly better for a super-jumbo. As part of my research I compared the economics of two 300 seat aircraft vs one 600 seat aircraft, both at 777 technology levels. The seat mile costs were only 10 percent lower for the 600 seat aircraft relative to the 300 seat aircraft. The research paper considered flying two smaller aircraft vs one large aircraft. Ironically, doubling the production run for the 300 seat aircraft reduced delivery cost for two 300 seat aircraft below that of one 600 aircraft. I accept this does not help with congestion, but it makes the point that civil aircraft design is virtually mature. A full copy of the research paper is available at: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ttdpr/aff/flight.html The study was made in the context of flying the two smaller aircraft in formation, but that is separate to the economic issue considered here. From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:15 From: andrewp@dial.pipex.com (Andrew Pickering) Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: [not set] tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) wrote: >We could get a 100 fold >increase in air travel if everyone flew as much as Americans currently >do (even without an increase in population). I guess for this to happen a lot of countries would have to increase in size as well. From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:16 From: tassio@watson.ibm.com Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Terry Schell wrote: >(...)Furthermore, we could get a 100 fold >increase in air travel if everyone flew as much as Americans currently >do (even without an increase in population). >In short, I don't think you "lack-of-demand-growth" argument >holds much weight. There may well be reasons why a super-jumbo does >not get built for a while... but it won't be because of a lack of >demand for passenger miles. At first when I read this I thought sure, my argument is nonsense. But the 100-fold figure seemed awfully high to me. So I pulled up Boeing's data on rpms per region and region pair for 1995. Within North America there were 423 billion rpm (brpm) flown. There were also 362 brpm flown between North America and other regions of the world. As I'm looking for rpm per capita, I'll assume 50% of those 362 rpms were flown by North Americans. Total is 604brpm. Assuming North American population as 290million, each person flew an average of 2083mi. "If everyone flew as much as Americans" (ok, I'm lumping the Canadians in), for a world population of 5.2bil, I'd get 10830brpm. Back to the Boeing data, the world flew 1601brpm. So, the increase ratio would be 6.8 (not 100), for everyone to fly as much. My computation has a series of unmentioned assumptions, but roughly, this number should be between 6 and 8. I'm sure there are more interesting numbers that could come out of this data. I tried the same computation on Boeing's projections 20 years from now and the ratio seemed just a small bit lower. I thought it can be an indication that Boeing is both overestimating growth in North America and underestimating growth in the rest of the world. Now imagine the world does catch up. A seven-fold growth in the world coming just from outside North America would translate into a 10-fold increase in other parts of the world. Would there be a lot more (i.e., _10_ times) flying between say London-Johannesburg, London-Singapore, London-HongKong, London-Tokyo, Tokyo-Singapore, BuenosAires-Madrid or HongKong-Sydney? Of course not, because traffic would spread more homogeneously. There would be a lot of flying between Dhaka-AddisAbaba, Beijing-Sydney, Luanda-RioDeJaneiro, Nairobi-Singapore, Paris-Jakarta, Kinshasa-Calcutta, Istambul-Denpasar. I still concede that air traffic can grow many-fold even if the world population stopped growing today. But if traffic triples in the next 20 years, larger airplanes won't necessarily be required. I hadn't originally said that, but only that "the size of the largest airplane will converge to a given number". Could be 3000, 5000, but I think that number is a helluva lot closer to 420. Tassio From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:16 From: tassio@watson.ibm.com Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Malcolm Weir wrote: >British Airways COO Dr. Alistair Cumming stated in a conference in LA >that "BA is committed to the need of aircraft larger than the 747 >because of the approaching saturation of airports(...) Look at these airports which are approaching (I mean, are past) saturation and the situation of competition around them. Start with London Heathrow. Fifty percent of traffic coming from North America into it on BA is connecting. Why don't these folks connect somewhere else? Because (i) BA got a lot of frequency (ii) BA got a good product and (iii) BA got the most comprehensive network of any airline in Europe. Will BA always be in this comfortable position? Nah. There is NW-KLM eating up the connecting traffic. There is UA-LH, with LH's network measuring up to BA's. Hopefully some day AF will also get in the fight. That's why BA wants American - without the alliance they won't be able to keep their market share. If the upcoming competitors push for a lot of frequency, they'll forget the large capacity plane. Running three large capacity planes between Dallas and London won't be competitive compared to LH+UA having twice as many 777s doing Chicago-Frankfurt. BA will be forced to develop into airports other than Heathrow (and Gatwick). HongKong & Singapore. After HongKong gets a new airport, the situation won't be solved but it will improve. Meanwhile, the infrastructure in the area will improve too. There will be a huge airport in Malaysia and a lot of airport construction is going on in Southern China. The pressure will be off. Tokyo. Japan is the only place where I don't see airport constraints being relaxed. The competition will come from Seoul. Using a huge new airport, airlines in Korea will connect the Japanese to secondary airports. Korean already serves 12 destinations in Japan. In general, a lot of the traffic in crowded airports nowadays is connecting traffic. This is fickle traffic, which will end up partly spilling to neighboring facilities. The BA COO even mentioned that BA pulled out of the 747 stretch when the costs became unatractive. If saturation were really the problem they'd go for even a slight improvement on seat-per-mi costs over the 747-400. The hardware-software analogy needs an additional element to hold. The traditional hardware (mainframe = 747-400) needs the cheap competition to knock out the aquisition cost. Now I'm trying to figure out the airplane equivalent of a PC. Tassio From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:16 From: Eric Peeters Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Malcolm Weir wrote: > > On 15 Apr 97 03:22:41 , matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) wrote: > > Matt's analysis, speculation, and deductions on: > > > Why no new Super-Jumbo? > > British Airways COO Dr. Alistair Cumming stated at a conference in LA > that "BA is committed to the need for larger aircraft than the 747 > because of the approaching saturation point of airports and the > infrastructure. Only one thing can help the industry grow in this > context, and that is larger aeroplanes. The industry cries out for > more efficient use of flights and slots by the provision of larger > aircraft". > Cumming also remarked that BA was ready to be the launch customer for > the 747-600X, but that the latter stages of the Boeing development > plan showed increasing inferiority to the proposed cost structure of > an all-new, purpose built aircraft. What Cumming also said and I think is relevant, is that BA wants a large aircraft bad enough to be ready to be the second official launch airline for the A3XX, provided they "can make money" out of it and the aircraft meets the airline's timescale. But then isn't that what you want out of any airliner ? Also, Cumming had an unusual explanation for Boeing's decision to drop studies of a new large aircraft, instead of using the B747-600X. To keep it short and as I understand it, BA simply wonders : 1) if Boeing has the cash to fund studies for a new large aircraft, given the cost of acquiring McD ? 2) if Boeing's decision was not based on its current monopoly situation and its hope Airbus will blunder or give up its attempts, which will lead to airlines needing a very large aircraft buying B747-400 ? Remember, or note, that Boeing estimates tally the number of -400s to be sold between now and 2010 to 700 aircraft, provided there's no very large aircraft coming from Airbus. How much of those 700 aircraft could be actually switched over to Airbus if it goes ahead with a 500 seater ? After all, Boeing aknowledge the need for a very large aircraft, the difference with Airbus being that it thinks it won't be needed until 2010. Comments anyone ? Eric Peeters From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:16 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Reply-To: "P. Wezeman" On 15 Apr 1997, matt weber wrote: > Why no new Super-Jumbo? ----snip---- > 2). Engine Performance. Larger engines have tended to more efficient. The > differences in specific fuel consumption between the JT8 class engines that > flew the 707/727/737 etc. and thegeneration that followed (JT9/CF6/RB211) that > flew the next generation were enormous.The JT8's were typically around > .61pounds of fuel/pound hour of thrust. The JT9's are typically about > .36, a roughly 40% improvement in Fuel Economy. ----snip---- I believe that your figure of .36 pounds of fuel per pound of thrust per hour for the JT9 is the static thrust value rather than that at cruise. High bypass turbofans produce significantly more thrust at low speeds than at high speeds because the ingested air is going slower and hence has a greater change in velocity, and momentum, for the same change in kinetic energy. "Jane's all the World's Aircraft" has both values. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:16 From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Re: Concorde in BOAC colours? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com No, Concorde was never flown in BOAC colours. The prototypes both maintained their white/red schemes throughout their flying careers, and by the time the British Concordes entered service in January 1976 British Airways was well established. I do remember plenty of travel agents' models etc. in the early 70's in BOAC colours, however! Steve F From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:16 From: Kenneth Mokkelbost Subject: Re: Concorde in BOAC colours? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Reply-To: kennethm@fm.unit.no eddy@spam-free.ludd.luth.se wrote: > > Was Concorde ever flown in BOAC colours? I'm not sure, but since the BA-livery wasn't adopted until 1977 and the Concorde entered service in '76, I believe it is very possible that the first year of operations was in BOAC-livery. -- Kenneth Mokkelbost e-mail: kennethm@fm.unit.no Stud.Techn. WWW: http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~kennethm/ stud.post 132 IRC: NAiMH (Newton's Apple's in My Head) NTH/NTNU (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) 7034 Trondheim From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:16 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Concorde in BOAC colours? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None In article , eddy@spam-free.ludd.luth.se says... >Was Concorde ever flown in BOAC colours? By 1977, G-BOAA was showing up in BA colors. brian whatcott Altus OK From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:16 From: "Leo Kok" Subject: Re: Boeing NSA References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >>Ask three questions: >>Which company did Boeing own when they were in this market segment? >Could it be ..... DEHAVILLAND!!! okay.. >>Which compnay is dominant in this market segment now? >Could it be ..... DEHAVILLAND!!! Nope..Bombardier >Who (country) wants to be in this market segment real bad? >Could it be ..... BOEING!!! Japan?? >>Looks like a consortium project.. >Mmmmmmm... possibly. I have to admit I'm on the outside looking in on this one! -- Leo J.J. Kok Structures Research & Development, Tel: (416)375-3363 de Havilland Inc.,Garratt Blvd., M/S: N18-06 FAX: (416)3737361 DOWNSVIEW, Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5 E-MAIL: lkok@dehavilland.ca From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:17 From: Alan Wong Subject: Re: 767-400ERX for SAS? References: <5j0ke0$ig@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Thomas.Enblom wrote: > Boeing is offering the B777-200 with seats for 305-328 pax. > Airbus is offering the A340 with seats for 232-295. > > The biggest incentive towards choosing the A340 to the B777-200 is > that the B777 is too big. According to the article SAS wants a slightly > bigger aircraft than its current B767-300ER. > > On the other hand an advantage for Boeing is that SAS operates B767 > today and has also placed orders for 41 B737-600. Adding B777 would > be adding another Boeing aircraft adding to the commoniality of the > aircraft types. > > My question is: WHY NOT CHOOSE THE B767-400ERX??? > > It seats 254-303 pax, the same as the A340. Current B767-300ER pilots will > be able to fly the stretched 767 with almost no additional training. The > range for the 767-400ERX will be (according to Boeing web) 10460 km > compared with 11350 km for the -300ER. I don't think that decrease can be > so critical for SAS or can it? I've always wondered about the range of 767-200/300ERs. The range stated in many places including Boeing's web page is up to 11350km for the -300ER. However, several airline's web pages state the range as much lower, typically 8500-9000km for the -300ER (Qantas, Air New Zealand, British Airways). Qantas states the range quoted is for a fully loaded aircraft - passengers and cargo and also mentions in their inflight magazine that greater ranges are achieved by limiting passengers and/or cargo. I do not believe there are several ER versions that give significantly different range capabilities. So my deduction is that the 767-300ER can fly 11350km with full passengers, but only with limited cargo. And with full passengers and maximum cargo (whatever that may be), it can only fly 8400-9000km. Similarly for the 767-200ER, but with even lower ranges. Can someone confirm/correct this? If my deductions are correct, then the existing 767ERs are rather compromised as a long haul aircraft in that either freight capacity or seats have to he left empty. This limitation will probably be carried to the 767-400 as well. Maybe that is why SAS finds the A340 or 777-200IGW much more suitable (assuming again that my deduction is correct). From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:17 From: M Carling Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j0ui0$1ul@chronicle.concentric.net> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch tassio@watson.ibm.com wrote: > > Andrew Chuang wrote: > >Mihir Pramod Shah wrote: > >> Is there a 777-300X being considered? > >Yes, I think it's highly likely to be launched with the 777-200X at > >the Paris Air Show. > > According to Boeing's web page, the range for the heaviest 777-300 > is 6500mi, and the 747-400 range is 8290mi. I imagine the range for a > 777-300X will be about the same as the 747-400. Given the 777's much > lower operating costs, what would then be the advantage of > operating the 747-400 (as opposed to the 777-300X)? While Boeing's web page claims 8290 miles for the 747-400, this is wildly optimistic. The longest non-stop route that anyone has been able to fly in both directions is United's ORD-HKG service at 7786 miles, which can only be flown during the summer, and is severely weight-restricted (301 seat configuration versus the usual 420 seats, and no cargo). On the other hand, Boeing's claim of 8225 miles for the 777-200IGW appears to be very conservative. I believe it is Boeing's official policy that the 747-400 has greater range than the 777-200IGW, though the evidence seems to suggest that the 777-200IGW has a range of at least 500 miles more than the 747-400. At this time, it is very difficult for us to accurately estimate the range of the 777-300X, but I'm confident that it will exceed the range of the present 747-400 by at least 1000 miles. This brings us to the question of why anyone would operate a 747-400 rather than a 777-300X, given that the latter will certainly have lower operating costs. There are two reasons. The 747-400 has greater capacity (by at least 50 pax) than will the 777-300X. In markets with slot restricted airports, this is important. Also, many long routes are transarctic, flying from North America to the Orient (flights are transpacific in the other direction to take advantage of headwinds). It is unlikely that transarctic routes can be flown with ETOPS aircraft (even if Russia allows the use of military bases in northeastern Siberia, they are likely to be unavailable because of weather). So a twin would have to fly either a longer transpacific route against headwinds or an even longer yet trans-Siberian route with tailwinds. I don't see this happening with flights in the 8000 miles range such as JFK-HKG, which a 747-400IGW might serve. Flights in the 9000+ mile range such as JFK-SIN may be flown across Siberia by a 777-200X (or possibly a 777-300X should it prove to have the range). M Carling From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:17 From: Robert Nielsen Subject: Double deck 747 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services A major consideration in NOT extending the upper deck of the 747 for the full length of the fuselage is the very important matter of emergency evacuation. Existing escape slides for the 747-400 upper deck can accommodate two people side-by-side, and are nearly thirty feet long and ten feet wide. Storing, inflating, and deploying such a monster is no easy task, and keep in mind that the slides must be capable of deploying in wind, and must not interfere with any other slide. The wings of the airplane are a formidable obstacle to slide deployment, hence Boeing's reluctance to stretch the upper deck. Airbus has not yet fully grasped the magnitude of the task they may be taking on in designing and CERTIFYING escape systems for the double-deck A3XX. A rule of thumb: the larger the airplane, the more emergency evacuation considerations influence the final design configuration. There was a excellent talk given on this subject by Geroge Veryioglou of Boeing at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, March 1997. From kls Wed Apr 23 02:58:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Apr 97 02:58:17 From: "john r." Subject: 747-400 Displays References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , "C. Marin Faure" >The 747 has had a straight staircase for many years now, well before the >advent of the -400. The -400 features a 2-man cockpit, and utilizes LCD >flat-panel displays. The 747-400 has CRT displays. They are strange tubes wich use both raster and stroke, giving a very good presentation but are not the most reliable bits of the plane. They often overheat and go mono, which takes less power, or blank for no apparent reason, usualy on power changes when on the ground. Either fault is often cleared by powering down for 30 seconds but we used to change a lot of them. In the last 3 years they have become more relaible. I took the cover off a dead one once to have a peek inside, it was full of fine dust and made rather a mess of the flight deck. The 777 LCD displays are adequate but not as sharp as the CRT's on the 747-400, however they are much more reliable and I have yet to change one. >The 747-400 and 777 flight decks are quite similar; >however, the 777 has a more advanced fault-reporting and >built-in-test-equipment (BITE) system. Its very good and even recomends rectification action and reset procedures (I work on the assumption that all messages are false unless proved otherwise). If they close the loop and it carry out its own tasks I quess many of us will be out of a job ! Keep them flying, -- john r. From news Fri Apr 18 14:14:14 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!144.212.95.13!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: Eric Peeters Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. Date: 18 Apr 1997 14:02:54 -0400 Organization: Lufthansa BRU (my opinions, not the airline's) Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5j8d0h$lsc@kragar.kei.com> References: On 15 Apr 97 03:22:41 , matt@firstsol.com (matt weber) wrote: > Why no new Super-Jumbo? >6), Will such an aircraft be built? My own suspicion is yes, but in order >to make it attractive, it is not going to be anytime soon While I don't disagree with your points, I'm willing to make a long term bet. Wanna bet the aircraft will be launched well before the end of the century ? My estimate is it will be formally launched within 2 years. I understand your scientific objections to the feasibility of such an aircraft. However, I believe they can all be overcome because I think the need for such an aircraft is there. Airbus needs it because it needs to complete its range of aircraft in order to compete efficiently with Boeing. When an airline needs an aircraft of the size of the B777 or the A340 and it already operates B747-400 or it intends to, the order often goes Seattle's way for commonality reasons. Please note that I said often, because we operate both the B747 and the A340. Airlines such as the one I work for (Lufthansa), BA and FedEx have made it clear they'll need some very large aircraft. I think at least 20 aircraft could be sold between the three airlines and selling the 20 others shouldn't be a problem. Both Boeing and Airbus agree on the need for a very large aircraft some time in the future. The difference between the two manufacturers lays in the time scale. Airbus targets a service of entry date of 2003 while Boeing thinks such an aircraft won't be needed until 2010 because both manufacturers have different views on the evolution of air travel in Asia. Boeing says traffic in and from/to Asia will evolve the way it did in Europe when deregulation came around. More flights between regional cities, thus by-passing congested hub cities. Airbus doesn't agree, claiming deregulation will be much harder to come by in large Asian countries where the powers that be still like to keep central control over everything, including air traffic. It adds that no matter how much you deregulate, skies can only get more crowded over Japan and on routes such as HGK-TPE. I tend to lean Airbus' way, because deregulation in Europe didn't lead to an explosion in transatlantic regional to regional flights or even regional to hub flights. The best example is Germany, where there is no natural hub, large cities in the country all tend to be almost of the same size. Still, long haul flights out of Munich or Dusseldor or Hamburg don't abound. There are a few, granted, but at the same time as those flights came to life, capacity on trunk line was increased, not decreased. Beside, many non-stop flights out of non-hub cities have been cancelled altogether. My estimate is regional flights increased mostly on domestic flights and short haul flights. Moreover, I also think regulation in Asia is not going to be as wide-spread as it was in Europe. Don't expect countries like China, India or Indonesia to rush to the table to fully deregulate their air industry, much less sign open skies agreement. On the whole, major Asian hubs are here to stay for a while, and larger aircraft will be needed to relieve overcrowding. None of this is in direct reply to your objections, but I tried to show both the will and the need for a very large aircraft is there, and will and need together will overcome technical objections, as they always have been since man was man. Now how long it will take is the subject of our bet, isn't it ? :) Eric Peeters From news Tue Apr 22 16:02:05 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news.nacamar.de!news.apfel.de!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!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!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: 1997 Aircraft Order Update (Apr 22, 97) Date: 22 Apr 1997 21:30:43 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5jjam3$nmp@chronicle.concentric.net> It's been a while since I last posted an update. I know I'll get some e-mail messages concerning NW's A330 order. I believe it's still under negotiation. Nothing is official. My guess is it will involve at least 30 A330-200s and NW will cancel its order of 16 A330-300s. Also, I did not include 8 A330-200s for Swissair (5) and Sabena (3) which will be leased. I believe some, if not all, was ordered in 1996 by leasing firm(s). The URL of the hypertext version of this list is http://www.cris.com/~chuanga/order_book.shtml *** 1997 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Apr 22, 97) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N|OS | 4P | | | N|SN | 1P | | | N|SR | 4P | | | N|HY | 1P | | | N|BM | 12U 8U | | | N|AMV | | | 2I | N|CA | | 5P | | N|BA | | 3R | | N|DL | | 70 5P 21G | | N|SQ | | 2R | | N|KL | | 4 | | N|UA | 4I 3I | | | N|DI | | 7 | | N|GT | | 2 | | N|Pembroke | 4 8 | | N|ZB | 2I 2R | | | N|KE | 4P | | | N|ILFC | 1U 1U | | | |BU | | 6 | | |CX | 1R 2| | | N|OU | 6C | | | |BR | | | 2G| |KA | 1R | | | |3Q | | 3 | | |CA | | 2P | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 1 10 18 9 17 2| 16 14 74 2 8 31 7 | 2 2| | 1997 | A I R B U S ( 66 ) | B O E I N G ( 152 ) |MD( 4)| 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 | 6 2| 16 14 74 | | |GEAE | | | | |IAE | | | | |P&W | 1 13 | 2 5 5 | | |R-R | 4 | 3 2 | | |Unknown| 13 9 | | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 1 10 18 9 17 2| 16 14 74 2 8 31 7 | 2 2| | 1997 | A I R B U S ( 66 ) | B O E I N G ( 152 ) |MD( 4)| 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|MH | | 15R | | N|H4 | | 4 3 3 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 1 10 18 9 17 2| 20 14 77 2 8 34 22 | 2 2| | 1997 | A I R B U S ( 66 ) | B O E I N G ( 177 ) |MD( 4)| 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 AMV- AMC Aviation BA - British BM - British Midland BR - EVA Airways BU - Braathens SAFE CA - Air China CX - Cathay Pacific DI - Deutsche BA DL - Delta GT - GB Airways H4 - Hainan HY - Uzbekistan KA - DragonAir KE - Korean Air KL - KLM MH - Malaysia OS - Austrian OU - Croatia SN - Sabena SQ - Singapore Airlines SR - Swissair UA - United ZB - Monarch From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:07 From: "Justin Talbot-Stern" Subject: Re: Gimli 767 nose gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: St Paul's College >How far are the mains from the aerodynamic center of the wing? I have a >feeling that the pitching moment created by the wing is much more important >that the lift it creates in this situation. An even more important effect >would be the moment imparted by the elevator. Generally, the ground contact point of the main gear is about 15 degrees behind and below the cg Justin From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:07 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: 767-400ERX for SAS? References: <5j0ke0$ig@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Alan Wong writes: >If my deductions are correct, then the existing 767ERs are rather compromised >as a long haul aircraft in that either freight capacity or seats have to he >left empty. This limitation will probably be carried to the 767-400 as well. >Maybe that is why SAS finds the A340 or 777-200IGW much more suitable >(assuming again that my deduction is correct). Interesting speculation... I wonder if this means that the 767ER's will be helped by the recent trend in long-haul aircraft to increase seat pitch (or expand "business class seating") at the expense of a couple rows of seats? I think that United and American both announced plans to do this on their long-hauls; I assume the competition will follow. From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:07 From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: A330-300HGW Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frontier Internet Services I hear that Airbus will be offering a higher gross weight version of the A330-300 to provide more competition for the 777-200IGW. The A330-300HGW could be available by late 1998. The MTOW will increase by 12 tonnes to 230 tonnes and the range will increase by as much as 1,300km to 10,200km. But the fuel capacity will be unchanged because the A330-300HGW will not have the A330-200's central fuel tank. So, how will the A330-300HGW fly the same payload further than the A330-300 or a bigger payload over a similar distance? There must be something else, maybe more powerful and efficient engines or more aerodynamic wings. From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:07 From: M Carling Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j0ui0$1ul@chronicle.concentric.net> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> <5jj7h9$gji@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch C. Marin Faure wrote: > > In article <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com>, tassio@watson.ibm.com wrote: > > > According to Boeing's web page, the range for the heaviest 777-300 > > is 6500mi, and the 747-400 range is 8290mi. I imagine the range for a > > 777-300X will be about the same as the 747-400. Given the 777's much > > lower operating costs, what would then be the advantage of > > operating the 747-400 (as opposed to the 777-300X)? > > Range is only part of the story. The 747 has, and always will have, more > volume capability than the 777 (unless we make a REALLY long one :-)) So > while versions of the 777 may be able to fly as far as the 747-400, they > won't be able to carry as much or carry freight items as large. A "REALLY long" 777 is possible, even with the current wing and engines. The 777-300 is 10 meters longer than the 777-200. A hypothetical 777-400X another 10 meters longer than the 777-300 would have some interesting attributes: 1) Such a 777-400X would have a length of 83.8 meters, just about 1.5 meters short of the maximum length an aircraft can be and still turn around between existing terminals. 2) Aviation week has reported that given the current 777 wing and engines, the heaviest possible MGTOW is 720,000lb. for the 777-200X and 700,000lb. and for the 777-300X. If the MGTOW for a 777-400X were then 680,000lb., and the fuel capacity were 45,220 gallons (as are the 777-200IGW and 777-300), then it would have a range of about 5-6000 miles or so. It would be possible to add fuel capacity and still have useful payload. 3) A 777-400X could not be assembled in the factory in which Boeing currently assembles 777s. This factory has a capacity of seven per month. At present, the factory is booked to capacity for the next 18 months or so. If 777 demand should grow beyond seven planes per month, Boeing would have to build another factory, which could (if so designed) be capable of assembling longer 777s. 4) Such a 777-400X would have greater seating capacity than the 747-400. I'm not sure which would have greater cargo capacity. The 747-400 would have much greater range, unless Boeing were to add additional fuel capacity to the 777. 5) Longer landing gear might be required to clear the tail during rotation. 6) A 777-400X would almost certainly require a fifth door on each side. M Carling From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:07 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j0ui0$1ul@chronicle.concentric.net> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> <5jj7h9$gji@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > 3) A 777-400X could not be assembled in the factory in which Boeing > currently assembles 777s. This factory has a capacity of seven per > month. At present, the factory is booked to capacity for the next 18 > months or so ... The report I saw said all delivery positions were commited thru the turn of the century -- over 32 months at this point. I've wondered if this might give Airbus a nice opportunity, much as they gave Boeing one a few years ago. Early in the A320 program, Airbus lost some sales to Boeing because Airbus only had scattered A320 delivery positions available for several years out. Sales to large carriers would require fairly rapid delivery of a large number of planes, and since Airbus couldn't do that, they couldn't even bid on some orders that ended up going to Boeing (or McDonnell Douglas). Now the tables are turned. Prior to their signing their exclusive deal with Boeing, Delta had expressed some interest in the A330/A340 over the 777 simply because they couldn't get decent 777 delivery positions. Presumably one of the escape clauses in the "exclusive" deal is that if Boeing can't deliver, Delta can still shop elsewhere, and the lack of 777 positions could still do just this. >4) Such a 777-400X would have greater seating capacity than the 747-400. >I'm not sure which would have greater cargo capacity. Here are some figures from AW&ST's most recent Aerospace Source Book and from United's System Timetable from about a year ago (the most recent one being missing some major chunks): lbs.(AW) lbs.(UA) cu.ft.(UA) -------- -------- ---------- 747-400 49,300 116,800 5,634 777-200 56,500 120,306 5,720 777-200IGW 56,500 777-300 61,500 I've no explanation for the large disparity between AvLeak's figures and United's. That even the 777-200 beats the 747-400 by either metric, never mind both, is quite a surprise. -- 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 Apr 30 03:19:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:08 From: Vince Horan Subject: Re: DC-8's in Tulsa References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gatwick Aviation Society In article , Jeff Cybulski writes >Does anyone know any info. on the 3 Alitalia DC-8's that have >beeb in storage in Tulsa? I've been here 6 years and thay have >not moved. These planes were registered to F.B.Ayer & Associates, but I believe never wore the N-numbers: N53FA msn 45666 ex I-DIWT N353FA msn 45624 ex I-DIWU N453FA msn 45601 ex I-DIWO info sourced from my new book 'Survivors 97' Vince Horan http://www.totavia.com/hawkeye/surviv97.html From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:08 From: M Carling Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: <5j8d2o$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch Roger Chung-Wee wrote: > > On 18 Apr 1997 14:04:05 -0400, eric@infoboard.be (Eric) wrote: > > >This begs to ask, however, what will happen to SIA's current flights to > >JFK via Amsterdam and Frankfurt which are, I'm told, quite > >profitable. Moreover, a recent in-house study said most passengers would > >rather take a one-stop flight than a non-stop one if the non-stop flight > >would be over 15 hours. Could we therefore see non-stop flights on some > >days and one-stop flights on others, via Europe, or a longer term solution > >which would offer two flights a day (not necessarily every day), both > >operated with a B777 or A340 instead of the current B747-400 to New York ? > > When you say non-stop, I presume you mean trans-Pacific flights from, > say, the west coast of America to Singapore as I'm sure that the > 777-200X will not be able to fly non-stop from the east coast unless, > perhaps, SIA can get a direct, polar route and GPS navigation. And > won't flying westwards to America still require a stop en-route? I expect the 777-200X to operate JFK-SIN, even though it will not be able to fly the great circle route because there probably aren't airports (at least in winter) in northern Siberia to which they could divert. Roger Chung-Wee appears to think that the great circle route from JFK to SIN is westward, but in fact it is eastward (nearly polar). Given prevailing winds, JFK-SIN service would fly eastbound in BOTH directions, though over-flight rights might be a problem with Mongolia. M Carling From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:08 From: M Carling Subject: Re: 777 short take-off? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch Paul F. Kunz wrote: > > I recently took a UA 777-200 IGW flight from SFO to LHR. Unlike > other overseas flights on variety of a/c from SFO, we used a shorter > runway (one pointing towards Oakland). Does the 777 have a short > take-off capablity compared to other long range a/c? I took off from SFO on Sunday in a 767-300 to JFK from runway 1R (presumably the runway indicated above). At the time, UA930 (a 777-200IGW bound for LHR) was waiting to depart on runway 28R, which seems to be the usual runway for 777-200IGW flights to London. M Carling From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:08 From: "Alvin W. Law" Subject: Aircraft range (was Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's...) References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j0ui0$1ul@chronicle.concentric.net> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, California Reply-To: alaw@us.oracle.com M Carling wrote: > > tassio@watson.ibm.com wrote: > > According to Boeing's web page, the range for the heaviest 777-300 > > is 6500mi, and the 747-400 range is 8290mi. I imagine the range for a > > 777-300X will be about the same as the 747-400. Given the 777's much > > lower operating costs, what would then be the advantage of > > operating the 747-400 (as opposed to the 777-300X)? > > While Boeing's web page claims 8290 miles for the 747-400, this is > wildly optimistic. The longest non-stop route that anyone has been able > to fly in both directions is United's ORD-HKG service at 7786 miles, > which can only be flown during the summer, and is severely > weight-restricted (301 seat configuration versus the usual 420 seats, > and no cargo). > > On the other hand, Boeing's claim of 8225 miles for the 777-200IGW > appears to be very conservative. I believe it is Boeing's official > policy that the 747-400 has greater range than the 777-200IGW, though > the evidence seems to suggest that the 777-200IGW has a range of at > least 500 miles more than the 747-400. Pardon my ignorance here but I have a question regarding aircraft ranges as published by airframe manufacturers for promotional purposes. As many of the so-called ultra-long haul routes are trans-Pacific which are heavily affected by the strong westerly wind, what kind of guidelines are the airframe manufacturers using to calculate the maximum range? Here are some of the permutations I can think of: - full loaded pax vs. fully loaded pax and cargo - uni-directional vs. bi-directional - w/ head / tail wind vs. w/o head / tail wind I've flown on fully loaded 747-400s for 15+ hours non-stop. Assuming no head winds, a range of 8,000+ miles is certainly achievable, at least theoretically. And while the longest bi-directional non-stop 747-400 route is ORG-HKG at 7786 miles as stated, it is limited by the westbound segment. The eastbound flight (HKG-ORD) certainly is capable of handling a larger payload or a longer range during summer, and even more so during winter. I think a 747-400 can quite possible handle HKG-JFK with a full load during winter months. From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:08 From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j0ui0$1ul@chronicle.concentric.net> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frontier Internet Services On 23 Apr 97 02:58:17 , M Carling wrote: >On the other hand, Boeing's claim of 8225 miles for the 777-200IGW >appears to be very conservative. I believe it is Boeing's official >policy that the 747-400 has greater range than the 777-200IGW, though >the evidence seems to suggest that the 777-200IGW has a range of at >least 500 miles more than the 747-400. > >At this time, it is very difficult for us to accurately estimate the >range of the 777-300X, but I'm confident that it will exceed the range >of the present 747-400 by at least 1000 miles. This brings us to the >question of why anyone would operate a 747-400 rather than a 777-300X, >given that the latter will certainly have lower operating costs. I would be amazed if the 777-300X will have so much range because Boeing would be shooting itself in the foot. I understand that Boeing makes about $30m on each (expensive) 747-400, so why should it encourage airlines to go for a much cheaper option? Remember, very many airlines that acquired the 747 did it for range rather than capacity, so I'd expect the smaller 777-300X to be hugely popular should the range be greater than the 747-400. From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:08 From: graemec@ibm.net Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net Ikls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Replacing 767-300(ER)s, not 747s, though if you dig back it used to be >one 747-238B, compared to *two* 777-200IGWs starting tomorrow. There's a surprise. Why/how/when did United get hold of an ex-Qantas 747? Via People's Express? Virgin? How many? Graeme Cant From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:08 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Replacing 767-300(ER)s, not 747s, though if you dig back it used to be >>one 747-238B, compared to *two* 777-200IGWs starting tomorrow. >There's a surprise. Why/how/when did United get hold of >an ex-Qantas 747? Via People's Express? Virgin? How many? Bits of this have come up occasionally in sci.aeronautics.airliners (archives at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html) but to answer all your questions ... Why? Because when United acquired Pan Am's London Heathrow routes, they only got two planes in the deal -- a pair of 747-212Bs, which United stored at OAK for several months, without ever operating them in revenue service, before trading them to Potomac Capital which in turn leased them back to Pan Am. United needed to add capacity to handle these new routes quickly and used, ex-Qantas 747-238Bs turned out to be the answer. How? By leasing them from Potomac Capital (five planes) and Electra Aviation (two planes, N159UA and N160UA), with the two 747-212Bs from Pan Am used as a partial trade. At least some of these planes have subsequently been purchased by United or otherwise re-financed. When? The aircraft were delivered between January and August on 1991. (I think the deal was announced at the start of the year though it may have been at the end of December 1990.) Via PE/VS? No, they came directly from Qantas. Some popular misconceptions about these planes are either (a) they have Rolls-Royce engines, since they came from Qantas, or (b) United got all of Qantas' JT9D-equipped 747-238Bs. Neither is true. Most of Qantas' 747s have Rolls-Royce RB.211 engines, but the first 17 (out of 22) 747-238Bs were equipped with JT9D engines (as was a 747-123 that Qantas leased for a time). Qantas kept the five -238Bs with RB.211 engines but unloaded all of the JT9D-equipped examples as newer 747s were delivered. United's seven are from that group. -- 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 Apr 30 03:19:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:08 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B-777 Double Decker??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "Stephen D. Todd" wrote: > Interestingly enough, in the mid-1960's, Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed > all bid on the C-5 contract. Lockheed of course won. Boeing took the > high wing of their design, slung it under the fuse and called it the > "bet your company" 747. This is not really correct. There were no common design elements between Boeing's C-5 entry and the 747. If you look at models of both aircraft, you can see the lack of similarity. What Boeing DID get out of its C-5 work was a lot of data on designing and building large aircraft which was put to good use when the 747 program was launched. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:09 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B-777 Double Decker??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: > In article , dcoon@ksu.edu (David > Alan Coon) wrote: > > > Am I correct in my thinking that a B-747-400series has > > replaced the traditional spiral staircase with a straight one and the > > cockpit is mostly digital? > > The 747 has had a straight staircase for many years now, well before the > advent of the -400. The -400 features a 2-man cockpit, and utilizes LCD > flat-panel displays. The 747-400 and 777 flight decks are quite similar; > however, the 777 has a more advanced fault-reporting and > built-in-test-equipment (BITE) system. I received a subsequent e-mail correction to this post that states that the 747-400 does not use the same LCD displays as the 777, but instead uses CRT flat-panel displays. I stand corrected: I thought we were putting the same LCD panels in our newest 747-400s, but apparently we're not. The display formats themselves, however, are almost identical on both airplanes to enhance fleet comonality. In fact, the new-generation 737s can have their LCD displays switched from analog-appearing instruments like the older 737s to displays identical to the 777. The switch is made by loading display data into the computers from a set of floppy disks and it takes only 20 minutes. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:09 From: na1321@fen.baynet.de (Michael Uplawski) Subject: Re: Two DC-10s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Free-Net Erlangen Nuernberg Fuerth, Germany Reply-To: na1321@fen.baynet.de On 15 Apr 97 03:22:39 , joliver@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu (James Oliver) wrote >Any help with the histories of two DC-10s we flew this week? >SUN COUNTRY N571SC and N572SC Howdy... I can not praise myself for the information. A collegue of mine has got it all: N571SC, Serial No. 46645 was bought by Western Airlines 19/07/79 as N912WA Then it was owned by Delta, United Aviation-Services (Leasing ??), Scan-Air, American Airlines, World Airlines, Malaysian Airlines. Sun Country aquired it on 10/07/91. Registration was changed 01/03/94 N572SC, Serial No. 46977 bought by Western Airlines 13/03/78 as N908WA nearly the same carreer as the other one: Delta, United Aviation-Services, Scan Air, American Airlines. With Sun Country from 20/06/91, registration -change 19/04/94 Oh, and both of them are DC10-10s. It's good, to contribute to a group instead of continuous reading and requesting... :-) Bye, Michael Uplawski ------------------------------ Stop boring me with Vietnam... I SURVIVED FRANKFURT From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:09 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: FMS Approach? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "Larry Nebron" asks (Wed Apr 23 14:36:52 1997):- > What is an FMS Approach? For SFO it is not published in the Jep or NOS. "FMS" = "Flight Management System". Among other navigational stuff, the FMS looks after autoland, so I would *guess* that it is the same as an "ILS" approach, but I stand to be corrected. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:09 From: "Mark E. Ingram" Subject: Re: FMS Approach? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 23 Apr 1997, Larry Nebron wrote: > What is an FMS Approach? For SFO it is not published in the Jep or NOS. Larry, I'm not sure that any *approaches* are designated specifically as FMS (Flight Management System), even though both precision (ILS) and non- precision approaches might be *flown* using FMS (but I could certainly be wrong about this). However, there definitely *are* designated FMS arrivals and departures, whose use *require* FMS - and often special crew certification as well. For an example of the former, see the Transport Canada white paper at: http://bluecoat.eurocontrol.fr/reports/ Regards, Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:09 From: Dave English Subject: Re: FMS Approach? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM A Flight Management System (FMS) approach is much like any other instrument approach, except that it uses the full navigation capabilities of the FMS computer rather than regular VOR, ILS etc. Advantages include better fuel economy, less autopilot programming by the crew in the busy terminal area, and less ATC instructions. Since you need high-end FMS equipment -- plus the airlines often commission these semi-private approaches -- the plates are not in regular NOS books, but are supplied by Jeppesen to participating airlines. Hope this helps, -- Dave. Great Aviation Quotes: http://www.skygod.com/quotes/quotes.html From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:09 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: FMS Approach? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:58 AM 4/23/97, you wrote: > >What is an FMS Approach? For SFO it is not published in the Jep or NOS. FMS approaches are designed for airplanes equipped with dual FMS equip which provides the required integrity of navigation. GPS approaches require GPS equipment while the FMS approaches can be performed using radio updating and IRS inputs. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-9455/4815 From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:09 From: mtcross@chat.carleton.ca (Mike Cross) Subject: Re: Can an Airbus 320/321/330/340 perform a controlled glide? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Gary S. James (gsjames@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > >In the event of loss of all 5 computers in the Electrical Flight > >Control System (EFCS) the crew can control pitch by moving the > >Trimmable Horizontal Stabiliser (THS) using the pitch trim > >wheels, and yaw (and roll to some extent) by operating the rudder > >via the pedals. > I fly A-320's for a major US airline and as part of our training we > area required to "fly" the airplane using these backup modes. I assure > you, that from a practical point of view the airplane is virtually > uncontrollable in this mode and would be incapable of making anything > remotely resembling a controlled landing. Fascinating! I read an article from a chief A320 test pilot for a major Canadian carrier who said he had flown (albeit in a simulator) a complete landing with all flight computers down using the above mentioned methods. He said the landing was surprisingly easy. > Additionally, there has been one instance where all flight computers > were turned off momentarily in flight. Panic ensued... and the > aircraft nearly went out of control. Sure. What airline is this? How did they turn off the computers? If these professional pilots panicked they should be fired because obviously they are not up to the job. Mike From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:09 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Super 80 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics BAEJS3201 wrote: > > Yesterday I was flying home from DFW on American Airlines. I was seat at > the wings leading edge of a MD83. I was looking out the window and noticed > a placard that was about 1 foot any from the owerwing exit non-skid. It > looked like a Delta wing shape and was striped. Does anyone know what is > placard is for. It's a means of visually detecting any accumulation of ice in that area. The MD-80 family had a problem in that the wet wing in that area was prone to icing. The fuel would be cold soaked from cruise flight, and then when the airplane landed at someplace warm and humid (like Miami in July), they tended to develop ice on top of the wing fuel tanks. Delta's airplanes (and others) have three little yellow triangles with black outlines (and a piece of string in the middle) for the same purpose. Jennings Heilig From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:10 From: Jeff Cybulski Subject: Re: Super 80 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Reply-To: skiea3b@earthlink.net BAEJS3201 wrote: > > Yesterday I was flying home from DFW on American Airlines. I was seat at > the wings leading edge of a MD83. I was looking out the window and noticed > a placard that was about 1 foot any from the owerwing exit non-skid. It > looked like a Delta wing shape and was striped. Does anyone know what is > placard is for. AA has installed "heater blankets"(manufactured by TDG) on all 260 MD-80's. It prevents icing of the upper wing which if formed and dislodged could FOD out the engine. the placard you saw was probably the No Step warning, as these are delicate panels. From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:10 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Super 80 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA In article , baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) wrote: > Yesterday I was flying home from DFW on American Airlines. I was seat at > the wings leading edge of a MD83. I was looking out the window and noticed > a placard that was about 1 foot any from the owerwing exit non-skid. It > looked like a Delta wing shape and was striped. Does anyone know what is > placard is for. These stripes are basically non skid paint applied to the wing root in a area where clear ice is expected to form.In icing conditions during preflight, a pilot is supposed to run a plastic pole over these areas, if the area is rough no ice is assumed to be present if the area is smooth the area is presumed to be iced over and deicing is required. MD80's have a habit of forming clear ice in this area due to cold soaked fuel in the center fuel tank, this ice is oft hard to see because, well, its clear. It also has a habit of breaking off when the wings flex during rotation and with the engines directly inline the results can be fatal. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:10 From: "Svein-Harald Jensen" Subject: Re: Super 80 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home BAEJS3201 wrote in article ... > Yesterday I was flying home from DFW on American Airlines. I was seat at > the wings leading edge of a MD83. I was looking out the window and noticed > a placard that was about 1 foot any from the owerwing exit non-skid. It > looked like a Delta wing shape and was striped. Does anyone know what is > placard is for. The placard (or actually painted) is an aftermath from the SAS MD80 that lost power on both engines after takeoff from Stockholm a few years ago. Clearice on the upper surface got loose as the wing flexed after T/O and was sucked into both engines. These suffered severe damage and the aircraft glided to a opening where she "landed". After this accident, a lot has been done to detect and/or remove this ice. Among this, heater blankets glued on the wings. The simplest is to touch the wing by your bare hands to feel if there is ice. And to aid in this, this rough paint is used in a triangular shape. The area is painted alternating rough and smooth, so you easier can feel the difference. If you don't feel the difference, there might be clearice on the wing. You only find this "placard" on the inboard part of the wing, in front of the engines. Guess why ! (Clue; the SAS MD80 with total engine failure). -- Svein-Harald Jensen (shjensen@online.no) From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:10 From: "Barry M. Alexander" Subject: Performance data for B-727 -7 Engine Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: B.Martin Industries Does anyone have and could send me or know where I can get Performance data for -7 engines on the B-727.. Thanks BMA From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:10 From: zirkball@aol.com (Zirkball) Subject: Flight characteristics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Can anyone direct me to a source or newsgroup where I could get some answers to questions about flight characteristics regarding some of the major commercial equipment--such as typical climb/cruise/profiles, etc for the D10, 757, etc. Thanks, Kip Zirkel From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:10 From: "Thomas.Enblom" Subject: Braking Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ERICSSON RADIO SYSTEMS AB Reply-To: thomas.enblom@era.ericsson.se Hi. I noticed when I landed at Kai Tak in a CX B747-400 that the pilot used the thrust reversers to slow down the aircraft. When continuing with CX to Frankfurt the same aircraft this time only used air brakes (and probably wheel brakes) in order to slow down. I believe that the thrust reversers were utilized in Kai Tak due to the relatively short runway while Frankfurt's runway is long enough for just air braking. I would imagine that air braking is more gentle to the aircraft superstructure. That's why it is used whenever possible. I wonder what parts of the aircraft suffer most stress when using the thrust reversers? Are there other rules except for runway length that decides which braking technique to use? How much runway length is needed for an air braking B747-400 compared to using thrust reversers? ///Thomas From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:10 From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP In article , Terry Schell wrote: >tassio@watson.ibm.com writes: > >>Given the projected growth in passenger trips, the fact that the >>world population will stop growing, and that each one of us can only do >>up to a given amount of travel (some cannot do any because >>they are scared of flying), the size of the largest aircraft >>available to airlines will converge to a given number. > >Hmmm... people who do the sort of population prediction you are >talking about are not expecting the world's population to stop >growing anytime really soon. Furthermore, we could get a 100 fold >increase in air travel if everyone flew as much as Americans currently >do (even without an increase in population). There are 260 million people in America. There are just under six billion people in the world. Therefore there are just over 20 times as many people in the world as there are in America. Therefore the total amound of air travel you would get if everyone in the world travelled as much as the Americans would be around 25 times as much as now occurs for the American population. American carriers account for something like 40% of air travel in the world at the moment, meaning that total air travel occuring now is about 2.5 times the amount of travel undertaken by Americans (assuming that the difference between Americans travelling on foreign carriers and foreigners travelling on American carriers is a small percentage of total travel, which is a fair assumption). Therefore, if everyone in the world travelled as much as Americans do, total air travel would increase by a factor of 10, not 100. 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 Apr 30 03:19:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:10 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Reply-To: "P. Wezeman" On 15 Apr 1997, Malcolm Weir wrote: > The change here, though, is predicated on the fact that contemporary > aircraft are extremely efficient... BUT the realities of ground > handling are beginning to take their toll. > > British Airways COO Dr. Alistair Cumming stated at a conference in LA > that "BA is committed to the need for larger aircraft than the 747 > because of the approaching saturation point of airports and the > infrastructure. Only one thing can help the industry grow in this > context, and that is larger aeroplanes. The industry cries out for > more efficient use of flights and slots by the provision of larger > aircraft". ----snip---- > It seems to me that the real unknown in the equation is whether the > growth of hub by-pass and point-to-point routes was a result of market > demand for such services, or a result of an inability to supply an > effective hub-and-spoke operation within the constraints of capacity > controller airports. ---snip--- I think that hub and spoke route systems are themselves a cause of airport congestion. They require that many flights converge on a single airport in a short time. Hub-and-spoke operation is an example of how the interests of airlines and passengers are not in complete alignment. The passenger wants to fly from place to place, and the airline wants to provide that service, but for a given profit margin, the airline can equally well either fly more passengers, or fly the same number of passengers a greater distance. An airline has no inherent objection to flying from Boston to New York via Chicago is the passengers are willing to pay for the seat miles involved. A hub-and-spoke system is very good for connecting many points where no origin-destination pair has enough traffic to justify a direct flight. Hub-and-spoke operation is the keystone of Federal Express and its competitors. But it is not for everyone. Take the hypothetical example of Antarctica. Suppose we wanted to set up airline service between each of the coastal research bases on that continent. Ignoring the difficulties of servicing planes at one hundred degrees below zero Fahrenheit (I have read that sixty below zero at the coast can feel colder than one hundred below at the south pole because the air is denser and more humid) we could route each flight through the south pole station. Each day a jumbo jet leaves each base and makes a round trip to the south pole, where passengers change planes. Suppose there is no more than one half a jumbo-load of traffic between any two bases. But suppose we have a plane half the size of a jumbo, with 50 per cent higher costs per passenger mile. For flights up to about halfway around the continent, the smaller plane would be the same cost or less than the jumbo because of the shorter distance resulting from a direct flight versus a dog-leg route, and would also have the advantage of time savings. Given that we have hub-and-spoke systems connecting all cities, the efficient thing to do is to put in a direct flight with a suitably sized plane for all city pairs with enough traffic. Naturally, we could also add flights with one or more intermediate stops where this would also be a net advantage over a flight through the hub. In marginal cases, individual passengers would make choice between faster direct flights and cheaper hub flights based on the comparative value of money and time to them. Now that we have efficient regional jets that are accepted by the public, we should see more direct and near-direct flights and less reliance on hubs. This seems to be what is happening. The major hubs will handle flights between low traffic city pairs and flights where the route through the hub is reasonably direct. Also, a person leaving a given city does not have an equal probability of wanting to go to any city in the whole country. Rather, most travel is to cities no more than 600 miles away. For this reason, we may see the development of regional hubs which would handle most of the non direct route traffic. To the extent that airport capacity is limiting long range traffic, we should start to see older B747's being taken out of storage and replacing the twin engine planes that do the bulk of the transatlantic flights. The lower seat mile costs of the twins would be offset by the greater total revenue from the bigger plane. I agree that Airbus needs a 747 sized plane to be a full-line competitor to Boeing, and it might as well be somewhat bigger. This is separate from the question of whether the world needs it. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. > I still concede that air traffic can grow many-fold even if > the world population stopped growing today. But if traffic triples > in the next 20 years, larger airplanes won't necessarily be > required. The trend in Europe has been a move toward a greater frequency of direct flights using "smaller" airplanes like the B737/757/767/777 and A320/330/340. Witness BA's new JFK-Birmingham non-stop using an ETOPS 757. They determined there was enough demand for this service, but not enough to use a 747 or even a 767, although it could conceivably grow into that airplane. It appears that this same trend is developing in Asia/Austral Asia, which would indicate a larger market for smaller and mid-size planes than in very large planes. As someone pointed out, there are several new airports being constructed in the region along with improved surface transportation systems. This will make it a lot easier for a carrier to introduce a greater frequency of direct flights, which is what the travelling public seems to want these days. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 From: stdhuff1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (dg huffer) Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: <5j8d0h$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ciral's house of huffer In article <5j8d0h$lsc@kragar.kei.com>, Eric Peeters wrote: [clip] >Airlines such as the one I work for (Lufthansa), BA and FedEx have made it >clear they'll need some very large aircraft. I think at least 20 aircraft >could be sold between the three airlines and selling the 20 others >shouldn't be a problem. I'd seriously doubt that FedEx would ever go for a "super-jumbo". They'd much rather run two large planes then a single jumbo. They're no longer using they're 747, and will primarily be buying DC-10s and Airbuses over the next several years. Major factors in this include: (1) airport traffic usually isn't as congested when they fly, so takeoff/landing procedures aren't as time consuming (2) smaller planes reduce large surges of volume into/out of the sort, (3) allows for a more gradual change of volume flying between locations (4) lessens the dependence on a single aircraft to perform properly. -- dg huffer From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 747-400 Displays References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "john r." wrote: > In article , "C. Marin Faure" > >The 747 has had a straight staircase for many years now, well before the > >advent of the -400. The -400 features a 2-man cockpit, and utilizes LCD > >flat-panel displays. > > The 747-400 has CRT displays. You're right. I was corrected by a couple of my co-workers at Boeing on this one. I had assumed incorrectly that we were now putting the same LCD displays in the 747-400 as are being used in the 777 and New Generation 737. We're not, although the format of the displays in all three airplane models are almost identical (the displays in the 737, however, can be changed to replicate the "round instrument" displays in earlier 737s with a 20-minute software change via floppy disk. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Alan Wong wrote: > > > > There are still plenty of them to be seen daily at ORD (AA, UA), STL > > (TW), just to mention a few. > > Steve Lacker meant 727s are almost extinct outside the Americas. And he's > right. Passenger 727s are being retired rather quickly or converted to > cargo only. Actually, it was J. Heilig who made that comment in answer to my statement that I would miss them when they do retire. I found his comment interesting and unusual- the history of most other airliners is that when they reach the age of the 727, you find MORE of them in passenger service OUTSIDE the US than inside (take the 707 for example). With the 727 however, several American carriers are tenaciously hanging on to them (Delta, UA, TWA, and to a much lesser degree AA). Presumably, they plan to get every ounce of life out of them that they can. Is that simply a matter of timing? Have the impending Stage III restrictions so drastically lowered the resale value of 727's that it is more economical to fly them to the end of life rather than sell them off with fewer hours/cycles on the airframes? Or is it that the fact that the 727 (especially the -200 Advanced models which are the ones still in service) is still economically competitive with newer airliners? I know that most pilots I've talked to really like the 727, but I doubt that pilot preference figures heavily into an airline's economic decisions :-) My understanding of airline economics is still tenuous, at best. As a footnote- Yesterday I was walking back to my office after lunch, and a Delta 727 was turning on approach to AUS directly overhead, flaps and gear down. The thought that hit me was that it was a far more "interesting" silhouette to look at than any of its replacements. The obvious area of interest is, of course, the engine installation, but I think the change in sweepback in both the leading and trailing edges of the wing adds a lot to its appeal. In comparison, MD-80 and 737 wings look like popsicle sticks glued to a cylinder. -- 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 Wed Apr 30 03:19:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 From: "Marc Schaeffer" Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Alan Wong wrote : > The only passenger 727s I can think of operating outside the > Americas are Continental Micronesia, Ansett Australia (which are being > withdrawn this weekend), BA in South Africa. I'm sure I've missed some, > but you get the idea - there aren't very many of them. Well over here in Europe IBERIA still operates 28 B727-200Adv. They will be replaced with A321, however I don't know the exact date where this change will take place. Regards, -- Marc SCHAEFFER, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) 'The advantage of the Alzheimer disease is that every day you meet new people' Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 From: Tommy Spjeld Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telenor Online Public Access > There are still plenty of them to be seen daily at ORD (AA, UA), STL > (TW), just to mention a few. Not Only Iberia uses the 727's. Sterling European Airlines in Denmark still uses this great airplane (even though it is somewhat old), some of the Baltic airlines also use the 727, and I know for a fact that some of the Russian airlines as well use the worn out 727's. Tommy Spjeld From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I know for a fact that some of the Russian airlines as well use the >worn out 727's. I've never heard of a Russian carrier flying the 727. Are you sure you aren't thinking of the similar-looking Tu-154? -- 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 Apr 30 03:19:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 From: m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk (Martin Fiddler) Subject: stowaway in 747 wheel well - India/London Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Staffs University, UK It was on the news today that an imigration hearing will take place in London. It is to discuss someone who travelled from India to London in the wheel well of a 747. His friend who was with him died from hypothermia. He fell out, I guess as the landing gear was lowered for landing. It raises several questions:- I'm surprised that there's room in a wheel well once the wheels are retracted for two men? I guess they'd need to know exactly where to hide? I can't imagine that the wheel well is pressurised - how would they survive about nine hours at fl350 and above? What would the temperature drop to: about -50 deg C? Have there been any other successful stowaways where the person hid in a wheel well? If they can get access there, I'd have thought they could also get access to the warm, pressurised cargo hold. -- Martin m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Canadair RegionalJet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Can anyone please tell me when the Canadair RegionalJet was certified and entered service, and how many exist currently? Steve F From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 From: Mihir Pramod Shah Subject: Re: US Airways Fleet Changes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech J. Heilig wrote: > According to the latest I've heard, Airbus now considers the > USAir(ways) deal a letter of intent only. They're not cutting any metal > for any of those airplanes, and my own feeling is, I doubt you'll ever > see one delivered to AL. ^^ Hmmm...USAir(ways) hasn't used the "AL" code (referring to USAir(ways)' ancecstral name of Allegheny) for nearly 10 years now! Of course, US is the current two-letter code they use now. Mihir ________________________________________________ Mihir P. Shah Email: mishah@vt.edu 244 Old Cedarfield Drive WWW: (coming soon) Blacksburg, VA 24060 Phone: (540) 961-7869 From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:12 From: "Marc Schaeffer" Subject: Re: US Airways Fleet Changes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Jennings Heilig wrote : > The Airbus deal included (IIRC) some A330s in it. On the 06 Nov 96 Airbus wrote on their website : > The major U.S. carrier's preliminary agreement includes 120 firm > orders for Airbus A319, A320 and A321 airplanes. The agreement also > provides for a further order for 120 aircraft on a reconfirmable > basis, and options for 160 aircraft of the same type. Where did you get the A330 information from ? Regards, -- Marc SCHAEFFER, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) 'The advantage of the Alzheimer disease is that every day you meet new people' Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:12 From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: US Airways Fleet Changes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Mr. Steve has announced plans to turn US into a "smaller, regional carrier." While I personally think his plans of eliminating FL and CA service are suicide, the idea has not been lost on me. I may have mentioned this before, but I think US would do great with CRJs, operating them like Air Canada does. The 50 pax version COULD be a bit small, but the new Series 700 would be great (assuming US lives until 1999). US Airways serves some dinky wee airports (they serve just about every town in western PA with a driveway long enough to land a jet on) and I'm not sure that using 737s is the best plan. Cheap, small airliners are what US needs. But like others, I can't see US being around long enough to make anything of these (and other) plans. I could see American (or someone else) eating them easily. Historically, it would be tragic but I wouldn't lose to much sleep over it. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com http://users.penn.com/~cpa1/gallery.htm (AIRLINER PHOTO INDEX) From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:12 From: tbird209@cris.com (An Interested Party) Subject: Re: US Airways Fleet Changes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services On 15 Apr 97 03:22:39 , "David F. Wagener" wrote: >Anyone have any clue when the Fokkers will be sent to Arizona? > >Also, I understand that the DC-9s will be phased out here soon...so they >won't be getting the new pretty colors. :P Will the Airbuses...whenever >they come...replace the entire 737 and MD80 fleet then? > >Kinda dumb if you ask me. I have grown to associate the 737 with >USAir...since they fly just about the greatest number of them. If you ask >me...the billions to be spent on 400 A-319/320/321 is dumb. Should use the >money to pick up next-gen 737s and more long range planes (767s and 777s). Airbus Industries officially reclaimed all of the delivery positions that they were intending to give to USAirways. This deal is all but dead. In related new, Continental Airlines has decided to follow the lead of American Airlines and Delta Airlines in signing on with BOEING as the sole provider of aircraft with a capacity that's over 129 (I think) seats. From kls Wed Apr 30 03:19:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:12 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Continental and Boeing (was Re: US Airways Fleet Changes) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >In related new, Continental Airlines has decided to follow the lead >of American Airlines and Delta Airlines in signing on with BOEING as >the sole provider of aircraft ... No, Continental has not decided on anything. Continental requested that Boeing provide two bids, one a conventional one and the other a sole-source deal modeled on the American and Delta contracts. They have yet to announce a decision between the two approaches, nor for that matter have they announced a decision to buy from Boeing at all. -- 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 May 9 03:28:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:28:58 From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP In article , wrote: >Ikls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >>Replacing 767-300(ER)s, not 747s, though if you dig back it used to be >>one 747-238B, compared to *two* 777-200IGWs starting tomorrow. > >There's a surprise. Why/how/when did United get hold of >an ex-Qantas 747? Via People's Express? Virgin? How many? > Qantas have been retiring their 747-200s in favour of 747-400s for about a decade now. (Qantas needs to extra range more than most airlines do, so difference in value to them of a -400 and a -200 is much greater than for most airlines). Qantas has a reputation for looking after its aircraft, so airlines like United are generally quite happy to buy them. As I understand it, United bought them directly from Qantas, and bought a number of them (half a dozen? Karl undoubtedly knows the answer). 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 May 9 03:28:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:28:58 From: "Darren Rhodes" Subject: Re: Aircraft range (was Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and otherquestion about 777's...) References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j0ui0$1ul@chronicle.concentric.net><5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University Alvin W. Law wrote in article > Pardon my ignorance here but I have a question regarding aircraft ranges > as published by airframe manufacturers for promotional purposes. As many > of the so-called ultra-long haul routes are trans-Pacific which are heavily > affected by the strong westerly wind, what kind of guidelines are the > airframe manufacturers using to calculate the maximum range? With regard to headwinds, Boeing publishes a report called Winds on World Air Routes, Doc. No. D6-56162, and it lists the winds for different seasons at different altitude for the world's major air routes. It however doesn't list ORD-HKG or HKG-JFK. As a indicator though, for HKG-LAX (6283nm) it gives a peak headwind of 51kts for October and mimimum of 25kts in July. Because of this seasonal variation, most aerospace manufacturers use the annual equivalent 85th percentile wind in performance calculations. This is quoted as 24kts headwind at 39,000ft. For the return leg, the 85th percentile is -63kts or a 63kt tailwind at 39,000ft. -- Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, BEng. (Hons) | Department of Aeronautical & Tel: +44 (0)1509 223454 | Automotive Engineering & Fax: +44 (0)1509 223946 | Transport Studies, Email: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk | Loughborough University, Web: 158.125.1.201/~ttdpr/ | Leics. LE11 3TU, UK From kls Fri May 9 03:28:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:28:59 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j0ui0$1ul@chronicle.concentric.net> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> <5jj7h9$gji@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Now the tables are turned. Prior to their signing their exclusive >deal with Boeing, Delta had expressed some interest in the A330/A340 >over the 777 simply because they couldn't get decent 777 delivery >positions. Presumably one of the escape clauses in the "exclusive" >deal is that if Boeing can't deliver, Delta can still shop elsewhere, >and the lack of 777 positions could still do just this. I am sure that Boeing is thinking about this since their customers are talking publicly about this problem. I was wondering if they could assemble 777's in the MD-11 facility (now that they own it)? It might be profitable to kill MD-11 production even if they have some unfilled orders so that they can produce enough 777 to keep their customers from shopping at Airbus. Does anyone have any info on (a) the technical feasiblity of this geographic split in production, (b) Boeing's promises about production of MD aircraft or (c) the relative profit margins on 777's and MD-11's? Sincerely Terry From kls Fri May 9 03:28:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:28:59 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> <5jj7h9$gji@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , M Carling wrote: > >1) Such a 777-400X would have a length of 83.8 meters, just about 1.5 >meters short of the maximum length an aircraft can be and still turn >around between existing terminals. I belive ICAO "recommends" (sorry, I can't think of a better word to use) 80m by 80m. The proposed B747-700X was more than 80m long (it's not a typo; I'm not talking about the -600X). In fact, Airbus has emphasized numerous times that its A3XX-200 would fit in the 80m by 80m box. Nevertheless, an 80m long B777 will still be able to carry nearly 450 passengers in three classes. This will be an ideal B747-500X substitute, at least size-wise. This will also be a lot cheaper to develop than the B747-500X even if a new wing is needed (because many airlines wanted commonalities between the B747X and the B777). My guess is the engine thrust needed will be around 110,000 lb. It's probably doable for GE and R-R. However, the PW4000 may have reached its peak at 98K. >6) A 777-400X would almost certainly require a fifth door on each side. I believe the -300 already has ten doors. That's why the maximum allowable capacity of the -300 is 550. I think, if there is a -400X, it will have twelve doors. I think the B777-400X may have a great potential. Since almost all major Pacific Rim airlines already have the B777 on order, the -400X will make a lot of sense for regional operations. In a regional configuration, it can easily carry over 500 passengers. It definitely can be an effective A3XX competitor at the low end if both the A3XX and B777-400X are launched. Nevertheless, I have not seen any solid hint that Boeing is seriously considering stretching the B777-300. So, it's a pure speculation on my part. From kls Fri May 9 03:28:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:28:59 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5jj7h9$gji@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >> 3) A 777-400X could not be assembled in the factory in which Boeing >> currently assembles 777s. This factory has a capacity of seven per >> month. At present, the factory is booked to capacity for the next 18 >> months or so ... > >The report I saw said all delivery positions were commited thru the >turn of the century -- over 32 months at this point. With about 250 B777s still on backlog, that means almost all the B777s on order will be delivered by the year 2000 (32 x 7 = 224). I doubt that is the case. However, I believe there are some committed slots of which the contracts have not been signed officially. According to a Singaporean report that I found on the Web, Boeing officials indicated that orders for the B777-200X and -300X will be announced at the Paris Air Show. They would not give any more details but "guaranteed" that it would not be another Farnborough (at where Boeing failed to launch the B747X last year). It's understood that Boeing has been discussing with Emirates, All Nippon, Japan Airlines, Singapore, Cathay Pacific, China Southern. Malaysia Airlines has earlier signed a MoU for up to 15 B777-200X. Singapore Airlines seems to be not very pleased with Boeing's decision of not offering the B777-100X. Singapore thinks the -200X may be too large for some of the markets. If that's true, I wonder why Airbus is not pushing the A340-8000 since SIA already has a large fleet of A340s. Also, I can see Cathay order the B777-300X, but not the -200X. If Cathay does order the -200X instead of the A340-500X, then Boeing's sales team must have done a great job. I'm also surprised that Virgin is not on the list. I always have the impression that Virgin is interested in the B777-300X to replace its fleet of B747 classic. P.S. Just a prediction: I think by the end of this year, or perhaps at the Paris Air Show, the B777 orders will pull ahead of the A330/340. Currently, it's at 323 vs 354. However, I believe Boeing's number include Asiana's order of 15 B777s while Airbus's does not include Asiana's order of 18 A330s. From kls Fri May 9 03:28:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:28:59 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j0ui0$1ul@chronicle.concentric.net> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> <5jj7h9$gji@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > > 3) A 777-400X could not be assembled in the factory in which Boeing > > currently assembles 777s. This factory has a capacity of seven per > > month. At present, the factory is booked to capacity for the next 18 > > months or so ... > > The report I saw said all delivery positions were commited thru the > turn of the century -- over 32 months at this point. > > I've wondered if this might give Airbus a nice opportunity, much as > they gave Boeing one a few years ago. Early in the A320 program, > Airbus lost some sales to Boeing because Airbus only had scattered > A320 delivery positions available for several years out. Sales to > large carriers would require fairly rapid delivery of a large number > of planes, and since Airbus couldn't do that, they couldn't even bid > on some orders that ended up going to Boeing (or McDonnell Douglas). But don't forget all that nice McDonnell Douglas floorspace that could just as easily be used to build 777s as MD-11s. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri May 9 03:29:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:00 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Roger Chung-Wee wrote: > >I would be amazed if the 777-300X will have so much range because >Boeing would be shooting itself in the foot. I understand that Boeing >makes about $30m on each (expensive) 747-400, so why should it >encourage airlines to go for a much cheaper option? Remember, very >many airlines that acquired the 747 did it for range rather than >capacity, so I'd expect the smaller 777-300X to be hugely popular >should the range be greater than the 747-400. I don't think Boeing is shooting itslef in the foot. IMHO, Boeing plans perfectly for the growth of the B777 family. The early B747-100s and -200s have been in service for more than 20 years. A replacement is needed. The twin-engine B777-300 is an ideal replacement (well, it's the _only_ replacement product available now). Airbus's timing to launch the A340-600X now simply does not make sense. The -600 will compete with the B747-400. The B747-400 is still too new to be replaced. The A340-600X may get some incremental market, but it will be a long time before it gets the replacement market. The B747-400 is simply too well established. In the narrow-body market, the demand is so big that timing is less critical. That's why the A320 family did quite well even though it was launched a few years after the second-generation B737 was launched. In fact, in this market sector, the MD80, A320, and the B737 all did relatively well in the late 1980s because the market is big enough to support three competitors. Thus, I don't think you can apply the A320 experience here. IMHO, Airbus's failure to have a twin-engine replacement for the older B747s is very shortsighted. With Airbus not having a true competitor for the B777-300, the B777-300 can easily be Boeing's next milk cow. I don't think Boeing needs to worry about the B777 as a potential threat to its profitable B747 program. After all, the B747 cannot last forever. Boeing needs a new profit maker to replace the B747, and I think the B777 is the answer. The B777 program in its seventh year since the launch is a lot healthier than the B747 program in its first seven years. At this point, I can't see any reason why the B777 will not be able to continue to flourish. From kls Fri May 9 03:29:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:00 From: Robert Nielsen Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j0ui0$1ul@chronicle.concentric.net> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> <5jj7h9$gji@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Boeing is not exactly out of space to build 777s. All the existing airplanes have come from one assembly hall in Everett (the world's largest building), however, there is another assembly hall just to the east which contained the huge structure that held the "test to destruction" airframe, This hall was designed to produce 777s, and even contains a wing-body join station that is the beginning of final assembly. All that would be necessary would be the liberal application of money and people. There is also another assembly hall in Everett which was at one time used for a second 747 line; it is presently devoted to other tasks, but could be easily restarted or adapted to another model. Boeing hopes to produce more airplanes with existing facilities by increasing productivity and assembly speed; it seems to be working. Besides Everett, there is another line in Renton which is being readied for 737s, and Wichita (which builds a good many of the pieces of the 737), has long lobbied for final assembly. And all of this doesn't even begin to consider the use of McDonnell Douglas facilities, which can't be considered until the merger is done. I suggest that Boeing's ability to build more airplanes is not limited by final assembly space, but by the much greater difficulty of coordinating increased output from a huge number of suppliers. It is doubtful Boeing will turn down market share because of an inability to manufacture product in required quantities; it's too tough a business for that to be permitted. Robert Nielsen Airplane Dilettante From kls Fri May 9 03:29:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:00 From: "Marc Schaeffer" Subject: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article Roger Chung-Wee wrote : > I would be amazed if the 777-300X will have so much range because > Boeing would be shooting itself in the foot. I understand that > Boeing makes about $30m on each (expensive) 747-400, so why should > it encourage airlines to go for a much cheaper option? Just to put things right, on the Boeing website the following '97 list prices are shown : B747-400 156 to 174 M$ B777-300 149 to 171 M$ The price difference between a B777-200 and -200 IGW is 7M$. This would result in a '97 list price for the B777-300X of 156 to 178 M$, nearly the same price as for a B747-400. I think that Boeing can make 30M$ on this new bird, if it's going to be built one day .... Regards -- Marc SCHAEFFER, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) The advantage of the Alzheimer disease is that every day you meet new people Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Fri May 9 03:29:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:00 From: totoole@bit-net.com (Thomas O'Toole) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Av8r Images On 30 Apr 97 03:19:10 , "Thomas.Enblom" wrote: >I noticed when I landed at Kai Tak in a CX B747-400 that the pilot >used the thrust reversers to slow down the aircraft. > >When continuing with CX to Frankfurt the same aircraft this time only >used air brakes (and probably wheel brakes) in order to slow down. I would imagine that air braking is more gentle to the aircraft superstructure. That's why it is used whenever possible. >I wonder what parts of the aircraft suffer most stress >when using the thrust reversers? Actually the area that suffers the most stress when in reverse would be the engines. Instead of spooling the engines back up and risking possible injection of FOD, if it can be avoided pilot's like to use as little reverse thrust as possible. BUT...the stress on the engines is negligible compared to the cost of brake wear so chances are in Frankfurt they popped the boards and if the runway was long enough, barely brought the engines into reverse and used the wheel brakes at the end of the rollout. Tom From kls Fri May 9 03:29:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:00 From: ctillier@leland.Stanford.EDU (Clemens Emanuel Tillier) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Thomas.Enblom wrote: >When continuing with CX to Frankfurt the same aircraft this time only >used air brakes (and probably wheel brakes) in order to slow down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of spoilers ("air brakes") to dump the lift and get the weight on the wheels as quickly as possible, such that the wheels can brake effectively? As I understand it the extra drag from spoilers wouldn't slow the aircraft much, compared to wheel brakes. Could someone confirm/deny? (And while we're at it, what fraction of the braking (energy-wise) can be done by thrust reversers?) Clem __ Clemens E. Tillier _________________________ Stanford, Califonia, USA __ __ ctillier@................... ____________________Home: (415) 497-7593 __ __ .........leland.stanford.edu ____________________Work: (415) 723-6021 __ From kls Fri May 9 03:29:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:00 From: dzul@theos.com (dzul) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Reply-To: dzul@theos.com In message - "Thomas.Enblom" writes: >Are there other rules except for runway length that decides which >braking technique to use? > >How much runway length is needed for an air braking B747-400 compared >to using thrust reversers? some noise sensitive european airports prohibits usage of the reverse trust (excepy in emergency circumstances) in the early morning hours. length of runway required depends on the landing weight (among other things). also if u are using only your wheel brakes, u need to consider the landing weight, the turn around time and air temperature. if the wheel brakes gets too hot (if u do not use the reverse thrust), u need a lot of time to cool them off. dzul email: dzul@theos.com webpage : http://theos.com/~dzul From kls Fri May 9 03:29:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:00 From: jimcam@arctic.ca Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NTnet News Server On 1997 0-04-30 thomas.enblom@era.ericsson.se said: th>I noticed when I landed at Kai Tak in a CX B747-400 that the pilot th>used the thrust reversers to slow down the aircraft. th>When continuing with CX to Frankfurt the same aircraft this time th>only used air brakes (and probably wheel brakes) in order to slow th>down. By "air brakes" I assume you mean the spoilers. Definately the CX flight used the "wheel brakes". The civilian rules for landing a transport category aircraft are; 1) Cross the Threshold at 50 feet 2) Come to a stop using brakes only and 3) only use 60 percent of the landing distance available. th>I believe that the thrust reversers were utilized in Kai Tak due th>to the relatively short runway while Frankfurt's runway is th>long enough for just air braking. Perhaps at Kai Tak the Captian wanted to get off the runway quickly and allow others to land. Thrust reversers allow the aircraft to stop quickly without overheating the brakes. I saw a Boeing video of a 747 with the brakes on fire. This was a test of the stoping capability of the beakes on the 747. The exercise became a test of the brakes burning for 90 seconds without spreading to the rest of the aircraft. I guess Frankurt isn't as busy as Hong Kong and allows the aircraft to coast to the end of the runway. Or your aircraft was very light. ;-) Jim Cameron Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Canada `[1;33;40mNet-Tamer V 1.06 - Test Drive From kls Fri May 9 03:29:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:00 From: stanleyeo@mailhost.net (Eo Khai Chien Stanley) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service On 30 Apr 97 03:19:10 , "Thomas.Enblom" wrote: I'm not an expert in this field but I hope to share my point of view. Please correct me if you see there is an error in my statement. >I noticed when I landed at Kai Tak in a CX B747-400 that the pilot >used the thrust reversers to slow down the aircraft. Thrust reversal is use so that the aircraft can be brought to rest within the available length of existing runways and without the excessive use of wheel brakes. >When continuing with CX to Frankfurt the same aircraft this time only >used air brakes (and probably wheel brakes) in order to slow down. >I believe that the thrust reversers were utilized in Kai Tak due >to the relatively short runway while Frankfurt's runway is >long enough for just air braking. I agree that the plane uses thrust reversal the first time in Kai Tak to stop within the short runway. The reason why it isn't used the second time in Frankfurt is probably not necessary to use the technique on the long runway. >I would imagine that air braking is more gentle to the >aircraft superstructure. That's why it is used whenever >possible. Braking via wheel subject the undercarriage of the aircraft to stresses. >I wonder what parts of the aircraft suffer most stress >when using the thrust reversers? I believe the 'door' used to cover the airfoils used to divert the exhaust towards the front suffered the most stress. Depending on engine rating, the load varies between 4 - 13 tons. >Are there other rules except for runway length that decides which >braking technique to use? The condition of the runway also decides upon the technique used to halt the aircraft. It's safer to stop using thrust reversal than using only wheel brakes when landing on wet, icy or snow-covered runways. >How much runway length is needed for an air braking B747-400 compared >to using thrust reversers? ??? -- Add : stanleyeo@mailhost.net Alt : s5700010@singnet.com.sg From kls Fri May 9 03:29:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:01 From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Your Organization >I noticed when I landed at Kai Tak in a CX B747-400 that the pilot >used the thrust reversers to slow down the aircraft. > >When continuing with CX to Frankfurt the same aircraft this time only >used air brakes (and probably wheel brakes) in order to slow down. > >I would imagine that air braking is more gentle to the >aircraft superstructure. That's why it is used whenever >possible. > >Are there other rules except for runway length that decides which >braking technique to use? I would guess that reverse thrust uses fuel; while the spoilers/speedbrakes operate at no cost. From kls Fri May 9 03:29:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:01 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Roger Chung-Wee wrote: >I hear that Airbus will be offering a higher gross weight version of >the A330-300 to provide more competition for the 777-200IGW. The A330-300HGW will not be competing with the B777-200IGW. The latter has a range of over 7,200nm, a good 1,700nm longer range than the new A330 variant. The B777-200IGW is a direct competitor of the A340-300E. The A330-300HGW is aiming at European customers who may use the aircraft on Europe-Asia runs. Come to think of it, this move may be targeting SAS. Since the launch of the B777, Airbus had netted around 10 A330 orders. (In late 1990, the A330 order book stood at 127. The latest Airbus figure shows 172 A330s ordered with 41 being the A330-200.) The -300 desperately needs new customers, I don't think the HGW will do much to help its sagging order book. From kls Fri May 9 03:29:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:01 From: "Udayan V. Bhapkar" Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: ubhapkar@erols.com Roger Chung-Wee wrote: > > I hear that Airbus will be offering a higher gross weight version of > the A330-300 to provide more competition for the 777-200IGW. The > A330-300HGW could be available by late 1998. The MTOW will increase > by 12 tonnes to 230 tonnes and the range will increase by as much as > 1,300km to 10,200km. But the fuel capacity will be unchanged because > the A330-300HGW will not have the A330-200's central fuel tank. So, > how will the A330-300HGW fly the same payload further than the > A330-300 or a bigger payload over a similar distance? There must be > something else, maybe more powerful and efficient engines or more > aerodynamic wings. The answer lies in the fact that at MTOW, in most cases, one cannot choose maximum payload AND maximum fuel; such a combination will take you over MTOW. Instead, if one chooses to operate at max payload, then the MTOW limitation will force you to use only a portion of the max fuel capacity, and similarly, at max fuel, one cannot load up to max payload (note tat the max payload is usually quite a bit more than the weight of the passengers, and allows for a fair amount of revenue cargo. If you want to look at numbers, consider the specs in the AWST Oct 4, 1993 test flight: Operating weight empty: 119.9 tonnes Max payload: 44.1 tonnes Max fuel capacity: 77.9 tonnes MTOW: 212 tonnes The first three items add up to 241.9 tonnes, which is greater than MTOW. At MTOW and max payload, 48 tonnes of fuel can be carried. At max fuel, only 14.2 tonnes of payload can be carried. Only if MTOW were increased to 241.9 tonnes could one reach the max payload and fuel capacity simultaneously. The range that is quoted is usually not the absolute maximum range, but the range with a specified payload, and with fuel resereves. For the 777-200IGW, the following numbers are observed: Operating weight empty: 305,000 lbs Max payload: 125,000 lbs Max fuel capacity: 299,500 lbs MTOW: 632,500 lbs The first three items add up to 729,500 lbs. Therefore, the MTOW would need to increase to this amount befor the full range potential of the aircraft could be achieved. Udayan From kls Fri May 9 03:29:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:01 From: cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") Subject: Re: Can an Airbus 320/321/330/340 perform a controlled glide? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Compulink Information eXchange I can confirm that certification flight tests of the A320 did include completion of a flight (including landing) using only mechanical backup. Clive Leyman cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk From kls Fri May 9 03:29:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:01 From: zeno@magicnet.net Subject: Memories of late TWA 707 flights Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MagicNet, Inc. I have many fond memories of 2 flights I took on TWA 707s, from St. Louis to Pittsburgh, and then back from Pittsburgh to St. Louis, during the Christmas holidays of 1981. The open air overhead storage areas with no closing doors, the cruising at 41,000 feet. The very loud engines at takeoff and when the engines were reversed at landing. Sounds and sights of an era gone by. At the time, I had no idea, that this was near the end of the line for the TWA 707, or that TWA at the time was one of the last, if not the last US airline to use the 707. I would have enjoyed it even more, if I knew it all was about to end. Does anybody else have similar memories of a late 707 US flight? From kls Fri May 9 03:29:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:01 From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: Delta's engine selections References: <5i123g$o3d@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > Just to add another tidbit: NW almost helped the launch of the MD95. > NW insisted on the PW6000 for the powerplant. Somehow, MD/NW/P&W > couldn't reach to an agreement, and NW lost interest in the MD95. I never heard that, but it is interesting nonetheless. I am working on a project outlining what I personally think various airlines should do with their fleets (number intensive stuff). One of my variables in the NW (with US the main airline in the project) outline was the MD-95. How did MD/NW/P&W agree to disagree? The MD-95 is up that well known tributary without proper means of conveyance. NW is the largest DC-9 operator (139 from the source in front of me) and will, whether they like it or not, have to replace them sooner or later. The MD-95 would offer some airframe commonality (how much?) and I'm sure Douglas could offer good delivery. As it is Airbus will probably get a big A319 order in a few months. What happened? Is it too late? Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com http://users.penn.com/~cpa1/gallery.htm (AIRLINER PHOTO INDEX) I promise I'll update the index soon! Patience! From kls Fri May 9 03:29:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:01 From: LuisB <101523.146@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe Incorporated Marc Schaeffer wrote: > Well over here in Europe IBERIA still operates 28 B727-200Adv. They will > be replaced with A321, however I don't know the exact date where this > change will take place. > Iberia had 8 A-321 on order but they were canceled last year. The only orders now are for 8 B-757-200 ( plus 8 options ) and 4 A-340-300. I think will be hard to see A-321 in Iberia fleet. From kls Fri May 9 03:29:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:01 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 , Steve Lacker wrote: >I found his comment interesting and unusual- the history of most other >airliners is that when they reach the age of the 727, you find MORE of >them in passenger service OUTSIDE the US than inside (take the 707 for >example). With the 727 however, several American carriers are >tenaciously hanging on to them (Delta, UA, TWA, and to a much lesser >degree AA). Presumably, they plan to get every ounce of life out of them >that they can. Is that simply a matter of timing? Have the impending >Stage III restrictions so drastically lowered the resale value of 727's >that it is more economical to fly them to the end of life rather than >sell them off with fewer hours/cycles on the airframes? Or is it that >the fact that the 727 (especially the -200 Advanced models which are the >ones still in service) is still economically competitive with newer >airliners? I know that most pilots I've talked to really like the 727, >but I doubt that pilot preference figures heavily into an airline's >economic decisions :-) First, I suspect you can remove the "to a much lesser degree" modifier in your list. AA, to its chagrin, will apparently have to hang on to its 727s for rather longer than it wanted to. (Due to the lack of a suitable resolution of the pilot issue. According to Flight International, AA's delivery positions for 1998 are basically gone, and the 1999 ones are vulnerable. This involves next generation 737s, 757s, 767s, and 777s). One of the issues affecting the 727 is that there was no natural successor to the aircraft until the 737-800 came along, at least from a US manufacturer. >Stephen Lacker Malc. From kls Fri May 9 03:29:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:01 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> 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: >>I know for a fact that some of the Russian airlines as well use the >>worn out 727's. > >I've never heard of a Russian carrier flying the 727. Are you sure >you aren't thinking of the similar-looking Tu-154? Hmm I doubt Russian as well. Perhaps the previous poster (not KLS!) was thinking of ex- -Soviet- places like Latvia (Baltic flys or flew a 727-100) or Azerbaijhan (sp?) (who fly 727-200s). -- -Niels From kls Fri May 9 03:29:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:01 From: "Joey" Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Macrohard Inc. Steve Lacker wrote... > I found his comment interesting and unusual- the history of most other > airliners is that when they reach the age of the 727, you find MORE of > them in passenger service OUTSIDE the US than inside (take the 707 for > example). With the 727 however, several American carriers are > tenaciously hanging on to them (Delta, UA, TWA, and to a much lesser > degree AA). Presumably, they plan to get every ounce of life out of them > that they can. Is that simply a matter of timing? Have the impending > Stage III restrictions so drastically lowered the resale value of 727's > that it is more economical to fly them to the end of life rather than > sell them off with fewer hours/cycles on the airframes? Or is it that > the fact that the 727 (especially the -200 Advanced models which are the > ones still in service) is still economically competitive with newer > airliners? I know that most pilots I've talked to really like the 727, > but I doubt that pilot preference figures heavily into an airline's > economic decisions :-) I remember Bob Crandall (the American guy) talking about why he kept the 727 even when AA got its MD-80s. Supposedly, the 727-200 was more efficent in the long run than two 737s, and cost only half as much. Unfortunately, the 727s are starting to wear down, partially explaining AA's Boeing deal. From kls Fri May 9 03:29:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:02 From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: FMS Approach? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. In article , "Mark E. Ingram" wrote: >On 23 Apr 1997, Larry Nebron wrote: > >> What is an FMS Approach? For SFO it is not published in the Jep or NOS. > >Larry, I'm not sure that any *approaches* are designated specifically as >FMS (Flight Management System), even though both precision (ILS) and non- >precision approaches might be *flown* using FMS (but I could certainly be >wrong about this). There is an FMS *approach* to SFO (from the east to 28R) but I beleive it's a visual and essentially a cousin of a charted visual. It's not publicly published. The approach fix I always hear mentioned is ARCHI (not sure of the spelling). -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Fri May 9 03:29:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:02 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: CIS 727s (*not* Russian) References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Azerbaijan Airlines flies two 727-235s (4K-AZ1/AZ2) in a Y145 configuration. I think the main reason the 727 (esp the -200) is not being seen overseas in passenger service more is that the airframes are very valuable as freighters. Many have been, and are being, converted for that use. In fact, fully 1/2 of the two airplanes I saw during a two week stay in the Far East was a freighter... Jennings Heilig From kls Fri May 9 03:29:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:02 From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Replacement for Halon fire extinguishant Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Can anyone update me with the latest status of an approved alternative to Halon for engine fire extinguishers? e.g. is there a planned date for an FAA approval? I have heard of experimental programs on 777 and F18. Can anyone give me details of status and extinguishant type? TIA Gerald Wilson From kls Fri May 9 03:29:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:02 From: michael@cs.tu-berlin.de (Michael Baldamus) Subject: Re: Mid-air collision over Charki Dadri References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany Michael Baldamus (michael@cs.tu-berlin.de) wrote: : Marc SCHAEFFER (marcmsc@hotmail.com) wrote: : : Are there already any conclusions of the 12-Nov-96 Mid-air collision : : between the Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 747-168B and the Air Kazakstan : : Ilyushin 76TD over Charki Dadri(India) ? : I would like to follow up on this question. [...] As I have now found out via Dejanews, it seems that a Reuters news dispatch of November 23, 1996 gives some information on the possible cause. The baseline is that Kazakh investigators accused the Saudi aircrew of flying too high, and that Saudi airline officials denounced that. The dispatch says the Kazakh investigators based their claim on the flight recorder of the Ilyushin 76TD: It had been just below 15000 feet when the collision occured, and 15000 feet was the altitude assigned to it by the Indian controllers. Conversely, Dejanews contained another article from April where Saudi officials are quoted as saying a blunder by the Kazakhi crew and overworked Indian controllers caused the collision. Any comments, anyone? Has there already been any official report? Michael Baldamus computer science department Berlin University of Technology From kls Fri May 9 03:29:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:02 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Space for Money Trade Off Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Suppose that it were possible to move seats on an airliner so quickly and easily that it could be done before every flight. Suppose that the airlines then used this feature to give every passenger as much space as they wanted, and charged them a pro-rated ticket price based on how much space they occupied. For example, if a discount fare was 200 dollars for a seat with standard 34 inch pitch between rows, if you were willing to squeeze into 32 inches they would charge about six per cent less, or $188.00, while if you wanted 36 inches it would cost $212.00. Under these conditions, how would typical passengers choose? How would you choose? Would it depend on the length to the flight? I have heard that there is something of a backlash against the sardine can school of interior design. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Fri May 9 03:29:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:02 From: James Robertson Subject: long long range boeing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of World Reach Internet Access I seem to remember a serious proposal for a really long range aircraft able to fly London/Sydney.Information please anyone . Jim Robertson From kls Fri May 9 03:29:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:02 From: "Carl Peters, M.D." Subject: Starting large piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc How were large radial pistons (eg. on a Connie, DC-4,6) started? The starter would be electrical, but what was the source - the onboard batteries vs. an external generator cart? Thanks, Carl Peters From kls Fri May 9 03:29:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:02 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: TU144 supersonic airliner Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com What are happen to the Tuplov TU144 that NASA was leasing for supersonic testing,are they still leasing it. Thanks David From kls Fri May 9 03:29:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:02 From: Pete Mellor Subject: The ultimate in cockpit resource management in the A340 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The captains' fists are flying at 11,000ft ------------------------------------------ Two Turkish pilots undid their seatbelts and fought in the cockpit after falling out over what height they should be flying at. An autopilot maintained the jet, carrying 240 passengers, at 11,000ft. The clash occurred when Captain Altan Tezcan misunderstood altitude instructions from the control tower 45 minutes after the Airbus 340 took off from Bangkok. As the passengers settled down, Captain Erdogan Gecim asked him: "Are you deaf? He is telling you something and you are doing something completely different." The rest of the flight crew had to intervene to restore order and a third, more junior pilot completed the flight to Istanbul. Turkish Airlines said yesterday that it had sacked the pair immediately after the incident on April 4. "Their contracts have been annulled," said an airline spokesman. -------Ends-------- The story is taken, verbatim and without permission, from p14 of The Times, Tuesday May 6th 1997. Source is Reuter in Istanbul. (The same story was included in one of the late night news bulletins on BBC Radio 4 last night.) -- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk From kls Fri May 9 03:29:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:02 From: "Marc Schaeffer" Subject: Turkey to select aircraft bid this month Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On one of the news-servers I read that Turkey will choose this month 54 new aicraft. Proposals from Boeing, MDD and Airbus have been made. In the third week of May the selection will be made. The new aircraft will replace the B737-400/500 and A310-200/300 fleets. Airbus is offering up to 36 A319/320/321 and 18 A330-200/300. Boeing is offering the third generation B737 and the B767-300 and (-400 ??). I think MDD is only offering the MD90 and MD95, the MD11 just makes no sense. I would like to get comments about the following : - Will the order be splitted ? - What is the importance of the MDD proposal ? - Is Boeing offering an exclusive supplier deal ? Regards -- Marc SCHAEFFER, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) The advantage of the Alzheimer disease is that every day you meet new people Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Fri May 9 03:29:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:03 From: Martin Woodhead Subject: International Journal of Crashworthiness Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNet PIPEX server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet PIPEX) International Journal of Crashworthiness A new journal devoted to all aspects of the crash behaviour of structures and materials, and impact biomechanics. All four issues in volume 1 are available. Volume 2, issue 1 was published in January 1997. Volume 2, issue 2 is to be published this month (May 1997). Contents can be viewed at http://ds.dial.pipex.com/woodhead/ijcrash.htm We would be happy to send you a free sample copy. Rosemary Parravani Woodhead Publishing Limited Abington Hall Abington Cambridge CB1 6AH England Tel: +44 (0)1223 891358 Fax: +44 (0)1223 893694 Email: woodhead@dial.pipex.com From kls Fri May 9 03:29:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 May 97 03:29:03 From: Arno Schoedl Subject: DC-9 performance question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: TU Berlin Reply-To: schoedl@cs.tu-berlin.de Hello there! I attend a DC-9-30 flight simulator course at the Technical University of Berlin. They gave as two questions as homework, but we didn't get any information to answer them: 1. What is the allowed bank angle after take-off with 20 degrees of flaps, gear up, take-off power set, during initial climb out? 2. What is the stabilizer trim setting and power setting for an approach with 140 kts, 700 ft/min descent? I assume gear down, full flaps, weight about 35 t. Has anybody the performance specs and charts available to help me? I sent a mail with these questions to McDonnellDouglas, but they will probably have a good laugh rather than an answer to my question. Thank you very much! Arno From kls Sat May 17 15:15:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:45 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. > In article , > Roger Chung-Wee wrote: > >I hear that Airbus will be offering a higher gross weight version of > >the A330-300 to provide more competition for the 777-200IGW. If the A330 wants to compete with the 777 it's going to need a new wing. Increasing the gross weight alone isn't going to do it. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat May 17 15:15:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:45 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j0ui0$1ul@chronicle.concentric.net> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> <5jj7h9$gji@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) wrote: > I am sure that Boeing is thinking about this since their customers are > talking publicly about this problem. I was wondering if they could > assemble 777's in the MD-11 facility (now that they own it)? It might be > profitable to kill MD-11 production even if they have some unfilled > orders so that they can produce enough 777 to keep their customers > from shopping at Airbus. > > Does anyone have any info on (a) the technical feasiblity of this > geographic split in production, (b) Boeing's promises about production > of MD aircraft or (c) the relative profit margins on 777's and > MD-11's? (a) I can't speak officially for the company, of course, but everyone from our chairman on down knows that final assembly is the easiest and cheapest part of aircraft manufacturing. They can be put together anywhere there's floor space and the people to do it. Don't forget the 737 fuselage is built in Wichita and rail shipped to Renton for final assembly. We've been doing it for years and it works beautifully. And most of the 767 fuselage panels are built in Japan and shipped to Everett. Geography is rapidly becoming irrelevant in airplane assembly. Airbus is as good a lesson in that as we are. (b) You'll have to wait and see. (c) They'll never say. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat May 17 15:15:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:46 From: "Gary Welch" Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j0ui0$1ul@chronicle.concentric.net> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> <5jj7h9$gji@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Compaq Robert Nielsen wrote in article ... > All that would be necessary would be the liberal application > of money and people. I think that finding people is probably more of an issue than money or bricks and mortar. Even if they can find experienced workers it would take time to train them and integrate them into the Boeing system. I think they also want to avoid large cycles of hiring and layoffs. From kls Sat May 17 15:15:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:46 From: M Carling Subject: Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's... References: <5j0m7n$ig@kragar.kei.com> <5j8c0l$lsc@kragar.kei.com> <5jj7h9$gji@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch H Andrew Chuang wrote: > > In article , > M Carling wrote: > > > >1) Such a 777-400X would have a length of 83.8 meters, just about 1.5 > >meters short of the maximum length an aircraft can be and still turn > >around between existing terminals. > > I belive ICAO "recommends" (sorry, I can't think of a better word to > use) 80m by 80m. The proposed B747-700X was more than 80m long (it's > not a typo; I'm not talking about the -600X). The proposed length of the 747-600X was (according to AvWeek) 278.75 feet or 84.9 meters. Also according to AvWeek, 280 feet is the max length of an aircraft that can turn around between existing terminals. M Carling From kls Sat May 17 15:15:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:47 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On Fri May 9 13:37:31 1997, ctillier@leland.Stanford.EDU (Clemens Emanuel Tillier) wrote:- > Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of spoilers ("air > brakes") to dump the lift and get the weight on the wheels as quickly as > possible, such that the wheels can brake effectively? Yes. (At least that is my understanding from the various sources that I looked at when boning up on the background to the Warsaw A320 crash.) The spoiler flaps on the top of the wings are referred to as "ground spoilers" when used in this way. About 45 degrees of extension is used to dump lift. In flight, the same surfaces *are* used to increase drag and reduce air-speed, and are then referred to as "air brakes". For this purpose they are not extended so far. (I think not beyond 15 degrees, if that.) The above applies to most civil airliners. On some models of aircraft (I think mainly military) different control surfaces are used as air brakes and ground spoilers. > As I understand it > the extra drag from spoilers wouldn't slow the aircraft much, compared to > wheel brakes. Could someone confirm/deny? The extra drag would have a miniscule effect in reducing the ground speed. > (And while we're at it, what fraction of the braking (energy-wise) can be > done by thrust reversers?) Again, from the information I gathered in relation to the Warsaw crash, about 20%. Disclaimer: I am not an aeronautical engineer, and stand to be corrected. Apologies to anyone who was one of the sources of my information (Clive? Karl?) whom I have not specifically acknowledged. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sat May 17 15:15:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:47 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , ctillier@leland.Stanford.EDU (Clemens Emanuel Tillier) wrote: > Thomas.Enblom wrote: > > >When continuing with CX to Frankfurt the same aircraft this time only > >used air brakes (and probably wheel brakes) in order to slow down. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of spoilers ("air > brakes") to dump the lift and get the weight on the wheels as quickly as > possible, such that the wheels can brake effectively? As I understand it > the extra drag from spoilers wouldn't slow the aircraft much, compared to > wheel brakes. Could someone confirm/deny? You are correct. The spoilers play no role in atually slowing the plane, only in preventing it from ballooning back into the air and transferring weight to the wheels as quickly as possible. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat May 17 15:15:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:47 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In dzul@theos.com (dzul) writes: > >In message - "Thomas.Enblom" > writes: > >>Are there other rules except for runway length that decides which >>braking technique to use? > >if the wheel brakes gets too hot (if u do not use the reverse thrust), >u need a lot of time to cool them off. We used to pride ourselves on being able to "turn" a plane that was stopping for fuel with less than ten minutes block time. Seaboard- World's Operations Manual specified the plane must remain on the blocks for at least one hour after landing at near max landing weight. That requirement ruined our "block-times" for fuel stops, but SW pilots were certain the brakes were cooled down before starting to taxi out. Lou. From kls Sat May 17 15:15:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:48 From: Matthew Willshee <96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge, England On 9 May 1997, dzul wrote: > > > if the wheel brakes gets too hot (if u do not use the reverse thrust), u need > a lot of time to cool them off. UK Channel Four television screened "21st Century Aircraft", a series which followed the certification of the 777 late last summer. I should think something similar was shown in most other places. One bit I found especially interesting was a part of the flight test programme that involved braking from V1 (I think) to a standstill using wheel brakes with the engines at full power. There was a minimum time limit that the plane then had to stand (the brakes glowing red hot) without the undercarriage catching fire. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Matthew Willshee (Engineering Undergraduate) E-Mail: mjw44@cam.ac.uk Churchill College, Cambridge : 96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk From kls Sat May 17 15:15:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:48 From: "DaveHam" Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Thomas.Enblom wrote in article ... > > I noticed when I landed at Kai Tak in a CX B747-400 that the pilot > used the thrust reversers to slow down the aircraft. > > When continuing with CX to Frankfurt the same aircraft this time only > used air brakes (and probably wheel brakes) in order to slow down. > > I believe that the thrust reversers were utilized in Kai Tak due > to the relatively short runway while Frankfurt's runway is > long enough for just air braking. > > I would imagine that air braking is more gentle to the > aircraft superstructure. That's why it is used whenever > possible. > > I wonder what parts of the aircraft suffer most stress > when using the thrust reversers? > > Are there other rules except for runway length that decides which > braking technique to use? > > How much runway length is needed for an air braking B747-400 compared > to using thrust reversers? It is normal for all landings to use automatic wheel brakes. These are set to provide a particular deceleration rate depending on how quickly the aircraft is to be stopped. They automatically engage when all main wheels are firmly on the ground. Air brakes (or more correctly speed brakes or spoilers) automatically deploy on all landings and serve the main purpose of reducing lift from the wings to put weight on the main wheels to assist braking. Should the Auto-spoiler system be inoperative the landing distance increases by 160 m in the 747-400. Assuming a set deceleration rate is required and modulated by the auto-brakes, the use of reverse thrust simply relieves some of the work done by the wheel brakes. Due to the modern carbon braking systems fitted on the 747-400 some airlines opt to use only idle-reverse thrust when possible because normal landing brake loads are negligible compared to what the brake units are capable of. Reverse thrust does cause some wear and tear on the engines. Some reasons airlines who have this policy would stipulate the use of reverse thrust would be for short runways (with high braking loads required), wet or contaminated runways (with reduced wheel braking potential), fast turn arounds (where high brake temperatures would not have time to dissipate) and difficult runways. Kai Tak runway 13 is still a reasonably long runway (2786m) but because of the unusual approach the aircraft is harder to setup for landing and more runway may be used than normal so best play it safe and always use reverse thrust. The 747-400 is certified for rejected take-offs and all landings without the use of reverse thrust. The brakes are so powerful, the aircraft can accelerate to V1 (the takeoff decision speed where if before it you have an engine failure you stop) which is usually just short of liftoff speed and stop on the remaining runway with wheel brakes and spoilers alone. However aviation authorities require a major speed retarding device be available in reserve or the planned landing distance required is to be increased by 15%. The reverse thrust is the reserve speed retarding device. Obviously full wheel brakes and full reverse thrust will pull the aircraft up much quicker than brakes alone but operations are not predicated on this. Normal landing distance required for 747-400 at an average landing weight (240,000 Kg) on a dry runway at sea level with no wind and all brakes operational is 1780m. If one engine reverser is inoperative (allowable on the 747) the distance must be increased by 200m as a precaution but will not necessarily be used. This landing distance has a safety factor built in so the aircraft should pull up in 60% of this distance with full braking and no reverse thrust. You will notice on older aircraft with non-carbon brakes most operators always use reverse thrust regardless. This is because the cost of brake maintenance will always outweigh the wear and tear of reverse thrust. DaveHam From kls Sat May 17 15:15:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:49 From: "Robert Pata" <72023.436@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Commercial jetliners are design to stop with only the use of wheel brakes. The use of spoilers and thrust reversers are additional aids available to the pilot. Spoilers do three things during the landing rollout. First they transfer the weight of the aircraft onto the wheels. This increases friction which not only helps slow the aircraft, but also helps it track better. Second, spoilers help ensure positive contact of the air/ground safety switches. These are important switches because on many airplanes, devices such as anti-skid systems and thrust reversers are not available until these swithces make contact. And lastly, the extended spoiler panels produce aerodynamic drag. Spoilers are only effective at the high speed end of the landing rollout. Most spoilers are set for automatic extension upon touchdown. In the Boeing 757, if spoilers need to be manually deployed, this results in a 700 ft. penalty. Thrust reversers are most effective at the high speed end of the rollout. The use of thrust reversers at the low speed end is not recommended because of possible engine damage that may occur due to re-ingestion of its own exhaust gases as well as ingestion of debris off the runway. At the airline that I fly for, standard procedure requires that automatic spoilers be use on every landing, and thrust reversers down to 80 knots, with wheel brakes below 80 knots. This helps reduce heat and wear of the brakes, while utilizing a deceleration technique that is suitable on most runways. Robert Pata Boeing 757 Captain From kls Sat May 17 15:15:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:49 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Spoilers do three things during the landing rollout ... >Second, spoilers help ensure positive contact of the air/ground safety >switches. These are important >switches because on many airplanes, devices such as anti-skid systems and >thrust reversers are not available until these swithces make contact. On at least some -- I would have thought many -- aircraft, ground spoilers are one of those systems which are not available until the WOW (weight-on-wheels) or other ground sensors determine that the aircraft is on the ground. Thus, ground spoilers cannot be part of the process you describe on aircraft so designed, unless you were only referring to air spoilers (aka speed brakes). This was part of the problem which led to the LH 2904 crash, the A320 at Warsaw. -- 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 May 17 15:15:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:49 From: YANKI PURSUN Subject: Re: CIS 727s (*not* Russian) References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frankfurt University Computing Center Reply-To: fyp@usa.net J. Heilig wrote: > > Azerbaijan Airlines flies two 727-235s (4K-AZ1/AZ2) in a Y145 > configuration. As far as I know, the B727's have a 14C 131Y configuration. Brgds Yanki fyp@usa.net From kls Sat May 17 15:15:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:49 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Starting large piston engines 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) "Carl Peters, M.D." writes: >How were large radial pistons (eg. on a Connie, DC-4,6) started? The >starter would be electrical, but what was the source - the onboard >batteries vs. an external generator cart? Lincoln Electric! They make large gasoline engine-driven arc welders. An arc welder is nothing but a large generator, supplying several hundred amps at low voltage. The old-timer* from UAL I worked with briefly related stories of starting Electra's with them..... * If you knew "the one man in the airline business who wore a bow-tie and drank Martinis w/cherries" by his own description, that's my source ;=] -- 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 Sat May 17 15:15:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:50 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Starting large piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "Carl Peters, M.D." wrote: > How were large radial pistons (eg. on a Connie, DC-4,6) started? The > starter would be electrical, but what was the source - the onboard > batteries vs. an external generator cart? Some planes like the B-29 had an APU, a small gasoline generator that was started to provide the power to start the first engine (it was called a "putt-putt," however, not an APU). A few years ago I filmed on a DC-7 fire bomber, and teh pilots used its on-board batteries to start the engines. An external power cart also can be used. The B-17 I few on (Sentimental Journey) also used on-board batteries. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat May 17 15:15:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:50 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Starting large piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In "Carl Peters, M.D." writes: > >How were large radial pistons (eg. on a Connie, DC-4,6) started? The >starter would be electrical, but what was the source - the onboard >batteries vs. an external generator cart? On the L1649, we would use external power as long as it was available. One of our stations (McGrath) didn't have ground power available and they would leave No. 3 and No. 4 running while the passengers were deplaned on the left (normal) and the baggage and freight was removed from the belly. Only bad part was the propblast on the guy doing the baggage work - if the temperature was 40 below, the combination of the temperature and the propblast would drop the equivalent temperature down lower than 60 below. Summer was marginal as the batteries would give you a good start for one engine and then wouldn't have enough juice left to start another if the first one failed to strt. This was particularly bad if the temperatures were high enough to promote hard starting. Again, they would prefer to leave at least one engine running to take advantage of the generator rather than depleting the batteries. Wasn't so much the depletion of the batteries that was the major concern - it was the rather fast re-charging that could warp the plates and ruin the battery. Lou. From kls Sat May 17 15:15:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:50 From: Tony Kinsley Subject: Re: Starting large piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] Carl Peters, M.D. wrote: > > How were large radial pistons (eg. on a Connie, DC-4,6) started? The > starter would be electrical, but what was the source - the onboard > batteries vs. an external generator cart? In 1979 I worked in Nigeria and helped some American friends run a DC-6. I started the engines a couple of times and seem to remember that an APU had to be running before the start-up sequence was initiated (it caught fire once which was quite exciting!). A ground crewman would stand pointing a fire extinguisher at the engine to be started and I would alternate pressing three switches on an overhead panel (boost, ignition, fuel - memory fades) whilst counting the props passing the vertical, after which a "start" lever was advanced. Hopefully, after that, everything behind the aircraft was engulfed in smoke and the airplane would rumble to life! Incidentally, if anyone knows the whereabouts of a Werner Hamp (used to live in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida), or Jim Flaganagan (used to fly the Sunderland for Antilles Airboats), please drop me a line, I'd like to hook up with them again. Tony. pilgrim@sanctum.com From kls Sat May 17 15:15:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:51 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Starting large piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Carl Peters, M.D. wrote: > > How were large radial pistons (eg. on a Connie, DC-4,6) started? The > starter would be electrical, but what was the source - the onboard > batteries vs. an external generator cart? My only firsthand observations involve ex-WWII era military planes, but many use the same engines or predecessors of the engines used in the big passenger liners. All that I've observed are started with internal batteries, including the Douglas A-26 (P&W R-2800, same basic engine as the DC-6) and B-29 (Wright R-3350, same basic engine as the DC7 and Connie). Once one engine is running, its generator can begin recharging the batteries and supplying power for the next engine start. I have noticed that if an engine fails to start readily, another engine is often tried next and then the stubborn engine started once another engine or two is running. A long crank before getting the first engine running is very often followed by a longer interval between getting the first one running and starting the next one than is normally seen, presumably to allow for some battery charging. A funny thing about the demands on the starter of a piston engine- having more cylinders can actually reduce the peak load on the starter because the compression (energy required from the starter) and downstroke (a portion of the energy delivered back to the starter) cycles overlap. A small engine (e.g. an automotive 4-stroke 4-cylinder with zero overlap) actually puts a higher *peak* torque demand on a starter than an 8-cylinder with the same size cylinders. The *average* demand is a bit higher with more cylinders though, and since aircraft radials have MANY cylinders and each is very large, the average demand is still large. My point is that its not as large as you might think since overlap from 14, 18, or more cylinders smooths out the peaks, and also aircraft radials typically have very low static compression ratios on the order of 7:1 with turbo- or super-charging or a combination of the two. (Torque demand from the starter goes up with compression ratio, which is why Diesel engines need huge starters compared to spark-ignition engines). Normally aspirated automobiles, in contrast, average more than 8:1 compression, and 10:1 is fairly common with between 4 and 12 cylinders. So you can't just look at the starter from a 400 cubic inch auto V8 and scale it up linearly to estimate the starter needed for a 2800 cubic inch 18-cylinder radial. The radial does not need a starter 7 times as large or drawing 7 times the power that the automotive starter draws, but perhaps (just a wild guess) only 2-3 times as big. -- 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 May 17 15:15:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:51 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: 737-900 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 Yes 737 -900. The latest Flight Int'l mag says Boeing is thinking of developing a stretched -800. I guess commonality with other 737s and the efficiency of the new generation wing would justify any creep towards something that matches the 757, and might better compete directly with the A321. -- -Niels From kls Sat May 17 15:15:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:51 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: TU144 supersonic airliner References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics As far as I know the project only started fairly recently. It's flying from the Russian flight test center at Zhukovski (formerly erroneously known in the west as Ramenskoye). Not sure how long the project was scheduled to last, but I believe it's still ongoing.. Jennings Heilig From kls Sat May 17 15:15:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:51 From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: TU144 supersonic airliner References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA On 09 May 97 03:29:02 , baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) said: D> What are happen to the Tuplov TU144 that NASA was leasing for D> supersonic testing,are they still leasing it. We just had the fourth flight, which was mostly to check out instrumentation. This was announced in a weekly status meeting and, from the brief snippet I read in the notes of the meeting, it sounds like there's no near-term termination planned. -- 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 May 17 15:15:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:51 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: American 737-200's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Hey there can anyone out there tell me what ever happen to the 737-200's that American inherited from AirCal and retired. Thanks David Wirth Santa Barbara Aerspace INC From kls Sat May 17 15:15:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:52 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Turkey to select aircraft bid this month References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >On one of the news-servers I read that Turkey will choose this month 54 >new aicraft. Proposals from Boeing, MDD and Airbus have been made. In >the third week of May the selection will be made. The new aircraft >will replace the B737-400/500 and A310-200/300 fleets. Airbus is >offering up to 36 A319/320/321 and 18 A330-200/300. Boeing is offering >the third generation B737 and the B767-300 and (-400 ??). I think MDD >is only offering the MD90 and MD95, the MD11 just makes no sense. > >I would like to get comments about the following : >- Will the order be splitted ? My guess is Airbus will get the THY order. If the order is split, Airbus should get the widebody order, and Boeing narrowbody. >- What is the importance of the MDD proposal ? It's unlikely that McD will be a factor. >- Is Boeing offering an exclusive supplier deal ? No. At this time, I think exclusive supplier deals will be limited to big carriers. There is not much incentive for Boeing to guarantee prices if the volume of future potential orders is small. It'll be interesting to see if Boeing will go after some big non-US airlines (such as BA or JAL) or big non-US carriers will initiate talks with Boeing for exclusive deals. It'll also be interesting to see if EU does make this an issue in its review of the Boeing/McD merger. Personally, I think the customers can choose whatever they want. EU simply cannot tell AA, DL or any other airlines that they cannot sign an exclusive agreement with Boeing. Yes, DL and AA are big, but the remaining market is still big enough for Airbus and Boeing to compete. From kls Sat May 17 15:15:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:52 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Replacement for Halon fire extinguishant 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) GWilson404@aol.com writes: >Can anyone update me with the latest status of an approved alternative to >Halon for engine fire extinguishers? e.g. is there a planned date for an >FAA approval? Every proposal I have seen involved buying up existing supplies and stockpiling same. -- 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 Sat May 17 15:15:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:52 From: Charles Platt Subject: Book on TWA800 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC I've been reading THE DOWNING OF TWO FLIGHT 800, which makes a very strong case for the plane being penetrated by a US missile carrying a dummy warhead. I have no formal background in aviation, and I am unqualified to evaluate this book. I've been hoping to see someone with good credentials comment on it in this news group; but the last post I saw on this general subject appeared before the book was published. If the TWA800 affair really is a federal coverup, it's more shocking than most. Is the journalist credible to aviation experts? --CP From kls Sat May 17 15:15:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:52 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Performance data for B-727 -7 Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I have a copy of the Performance Engineer's Handbook for -7 and -9's. Is this what you are looking for? I'm sure there are a pile of legal issues, tho. In general... Net corrected (installed) static (takeoff) thrust at sea level standard day is ~13,750 pounds at 2.00 EPR, with bleeds on (pod engine - center engine is about 2-3% lower). Wf is about 12,500#/hr. At 0.90 Mach (slightly above MMO), 1.5 EPR gives ~8,500# max cruise thrust, at approx 4,600#/hr fuel flow per engine. TheFNG From kls Sat May 17 15:15:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:52 From: Tom Atkinson Subject: Cruising speeds - 727, 737, 767, 747 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: high degree thereof, thanks to Linux Hello all, Please could somebody enlighten me as to the crusing speeds of these aircraft: 727 (200) 737 (300 or 400) 767 747 (200, 300 or 400) By "cruising speed", I probably really mean "typical groundspeed", assuming the aircraft is operating at its most preferred altitude, in "nil winds". Does sector length have much bearing on their speeds? Does a sector of 1,700 nautical miles pose a challenge to the 737? If so, does it cope by going slower? Do they all cruise at the same speed? If they cruise at different speeds, is it because they cruise at different altitudes? How did the 707 compare? Thanking you muchly in advance, Tom Atkinson, Perth, Australia From kls Sat May 17 15:15:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:52 From: hasmith@acsu.buffalo.edu Subject: Perhaps a silly question (DC-9 barrel roll) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University at Buffalo I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me here. On a recent flight a friend and I were musing on whether a commercial jet (In this case it was a DC9) could handle a barrel roll. Now I know there are all sorts of factors to consider like at what speed, and perhaps how fast the roll itself was executed, but I would appreciate any input anyone might have. Thanks, Howard From kls Sat May 17 15:15:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:52 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: 777 cabin fires Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA Does anyone have any info on small cabin fires starting on United's 777s, supposedly these fires invlove components of the cabin entertainment system? -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Sat May 17 15:15:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:53 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Memories of late TWA 707 flights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics I was returning to Florida from the middle east in June of 1983 on TWA. At JFK the MCO flight was scheduled to be a 727-200. Two guys were wrenching on #1 when I got to the gate. After departure time came and went, I saw them button up the nacelle, push the airplane back, and take off across the field with it. The desk *then* announced that the flight would be delayed (duh...). Shortly afterward, to my delight, what comes towing across the field but a 707-331B. I was overjoyed that they pulled it into our gate, as it was my first (and last) pax 707 flight. I do recall the big round overhead lights in the ceiling, but I can't recall if the bins were open or not. A very enjoyable flight, and very memorable. Jennings Heilig From kls Sat May 17 15:15:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:53 From: jimcam@arctic.ca Subject: Re: Memories of late TWA 707 flights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NTnet News Server On 1997-05-09 zeno@magicnet.net said: ze>I have many fond memories of 2 flights I took on TWA 707s, from St. ze>Louis to Pittsburgh, and then back from Pittsburgh to St. Louis, ze>during the Christmas holidays of 1981. The open air overhead ze>storage areas with no closing doors, the cruising at 41,000 feet. 41,000 feet from Pittsburgh to St. Louis??? How about 31,000 feet. Jim Cameron Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Canada Net-Tamer V 1.08.1 - Test Drive From kls Sat May 17 15:15:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:53 From: sweepdog@aol.com (SweepDog) Subject: Separation distances Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Please can someone answer the following questions Say, going to the Mediterranean, in good flying conditions, what is the minium permissable separation of aircraft to achieve maximum capacity? i.e. horizontal (left to right, and forwards and backwards) & vertical separation Also, I''ve noticed on a good day at Manchester airport, planes land about a minute apart. When Runway 2 is open, does this mean 2 planes can land at the same time From kls Sat May 17 15:15:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:53 From: jimcam@arctic.ca Subject: Re: Airliner Values References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NTnet News Server >eddy@spam-free.ludd.luth.se wrote in article >... >> Thought you might be interested in the market value of Airliners, >>have a look on http://www.aeps.com/aeps/jeteval.html >> Did you know that a -400 series 737 on average is worth *23* times >> more than a -200 !!! >Yup...you can pick up a good 737-200 from an airline for about 600K. >..thats $600,000. Unlike the going rate of -400 around $35 million. How about 2 to 4 million for a "good" 737-200. All you get for 600K is junk. Jim Cameron Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Canada Net-Tamer V 1.06 - Test Drive From kls Sat May 17 15:15:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:53 From: "David F. Wagener" Subject: Re: Airliner Values References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DaNet Design, Ltd. eddy@spam-free.ludd.luth.se wrote in article ... > Thought you might be interested in the market value of Airliners, have > a look on http://www.aeps.com/aeps/jeteval.html > > Did you know that a -400 series 737 on average is worth *23* times > more than a -200 !!! Yup...you can pick up a good 737-200 from an airline for about 600K...thats $600,000. Unlike the going rate of -400 around $35 million. From kls Sat May 17 15:15:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:54 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In response to Dimitrios Tombros's query: >> How did you manage to ride in the cockpit of a Swissair aircraft for t/o. Andrew J Braithwaite wrote on Tue Apr 15 11:44:53 1997:- > It is usually very strict. There are two reasons, first is obvious - the > risk of hijack. The second is that an unqualified observer in the cockpit > could distract the crew during a critical phase of flight. > > With U.S. airlines there is absolutely no way that you are allowed in the > cockpit. > ... > With the European airlines ( I am not sure of the regulations outside of > Europe ) it is at the Captians discretion. However if anything happens, > even a minor incident, the Captain would have some very serious explaining > to do. So it is extremely unusual for them to allow it. It may be worth > asking but don't be insulted when the answer is "No". I have managed it several times over the past few years (Singapore Airlines LHR-Singapore 1995; Cathay Pacific between HK and Singapore both ways in the last two weeks). On no occasion was I given the impression that this was in any way unusual, and the flight crews were always very chatty and informative. It was simply a matter of asking the cabin staff to pass on the request. On the last two occasions, I would have liked to have sat in for the landing, but the first time, another passenger had gotten his request in first, and the second time, the FO was under instruction, and the captain expressed his regret that in such cases there *are* rules against spectators in the cockpit during critical phases (implying that there *aren't* in ordinary circumstances). I will be posting an account of the most recent visits shortly. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sat May 17 15:15:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:54 From: "Brian A. Reynolds" Subject: Re: Flying in the Jump Seat (was: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Collins > > As for US airlines, I think they are pretty strict, but on one flight > (don't recall which US airline) I did see one very pretty blonde go up > into the cockpit during cruise and not come out till after landing. I > think the rules are different for pretty women! ;-) Here's the Law (at least in the US :) FAR 121 (Air Carriers and Commercial Operations of Large Aircraft) subpart 121.547 Admission to flight deck: (a) No person may admit any person to the flight deck of an aircraft unless the person being admitted is - (1) a crewmewmber (2) An FAA or NTSB person performing official duties (3) An employee of the United States, a certificate holder, or an aeronautical enterprise who has the permission of the pilot in command, and whose duties are such that admission to the flight deck is necessary or advantageous for safe operations; or (4) Any person who has the permission of the pilot in command and is specifically authorized by the certificate holder management and by the Administrator (i.e. the FAA Director). 121.547(3) allows some discression on the part of a pilot. However remember that EVERYTHING said on the flight deck is recorded, and in the event of an incident, can be used to determine the cause of the incident. If the pilot in command has exercised his discression by allowing someone on the flight deck, and that person causes a distraction (at the least) which leads to the incident, the pilot in command will be held responsible. 121.547(4) takes about 5 weeks (but is worth the wait :))) as it winds its way through officialdom. Non-US carriers have broader discression. Presentation of a business card to the lead flight attendent with a polite request on the back may assist you in getting into the jump seat for a time. Sitting in the flight deck of a DC-10/MD-11/747 while you fly through the tops of clouds will be somehting you'll remember for a long time. Sitting on the flight deck of an A/C while flying over the middle of the Atlantic, with todays newspapers over the windshield to keep the sun out is not so exciting. :) Brian From kls Sat May 17 15:15:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 May 97 15:15:54 From: Graham Barber Subject: Re: Flying in the Jump Seat (was: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sir i read your email with great interest, as i have been in your situation many times. I worked for 10 years in Air Traffic Control in the UK but left on very minor medical grounds. I still love flying and travelling and love nothing more than a jump seat ride. I have only ever once been refused a visit to the flight deck (in 1992 by Thai International) and have traveled extensively world-wide. When working in ATC I used to be able to take quite regular familiarisation flights where the entire flight was spent on the flight deck. Now, like yourself, I have to ask. I honestly believe that most airline captains genuinely enjoy having members of the public on the flight deck for landing, if the person is interested in what is going on. Naturally they get requests from all sorts of young children etc but appear to normally refuse as they need to keep in mind the fact that the crew workload is likely to be very high, total concentration will be needed and the very last thing they need will be anyone shouting, distracting or generally being a pain in the ass. I have found it is best to ask for a flight deck visit at around two thirds distance and when you are in there and have appeared greatly interested a polite request is rarely refused. I obviously have a far better chance than most and on most flights I have never needed to ask the question as the offer of a jumpseat landing is made. In every case I, like you, are amazed at what does go on especially during a holding pastern and decent into a very busy airfield. My advice is, dress reasonably smart (not a dinner suit but not a scruff either!) appear interested and politely ask the question. My greatest ever success was when I visited some relations in Melbourne, Australia. The home leg started with MEL - Hong Kong. For at least 10 years I have waited for the chance to visit Hong Kong let alone sit on the flight deck for a landing in HKG. I decided to ask the question which, if refused, would grow to begging!. Before I left the UK I wrote to QANTAS. I stated my flight number and assured them of my interest and my maturity etc. A letter was waiting at QANTAS check in in Melbourne from a Chief Pilot - B767 and I spent the first hour during taxi and departure from MEL and the final hour of decent into HKG. Will I ever forget this? No. US airlines have strict rules which even I could not get around. Even ATC personnel have to be on an official familiarisation flight (with proof paperwork) to gain access. The rule is ask, be polite, plan ahead if you can and never be frightened to ask. Many Captains will welcome you. Graham Barber. gbarber@griffin.co.uk From kls Fri May 23 09:03:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:29 From: "FRANK TONG" Subject: B744 engine shutdown question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service When working on B744 with RB211-524G/H engine powered aircraft, when shuting down engines, why does the engine control switch on overhead panel will turn to alternate and alternate ligth will be on for few seconds ? Also, in the course note, it states that every time you shutdown the engine, FAFC channel will switch from A to B, or B to A. However, I never note this happen. Could somebody advice ? From kls Fri May 23 09:03:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:29 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote on Sun May 18 00:02:24 1997:- > If the A330 wants to compete with the 777 it's going to need a new wing. On my last flight on an A330, I sat in the jump seat for a while. The captain said that in his opinion the A330 wing was brilliant, and the most advanced thing since sliced bread. Any comments? Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri May 23 09:03:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:29 From: "S. Buining" Subject: Re: Replacement for Halon fire extinguishant References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology David Lesher wrote: > > GWilson404@aol.com writes: > > >Can anyone update me with the latest status of an approved alternative to > >Halon for engine fire extinguishers? e.g. is there a planned date for an > >FAA approval? > > Every proposal I have seen involved buying up existing supplies and > stockpiling same. There have been several options. At this moment the Halon replacement task force (existing of Airlines, authorities and 'Halon-experts') have not decided on a replacement (as far as I know). Still you have to question what the hurry is for the European and US markets as long as there is major production of Halon in Azia (for example India still produces Halon on a large scale) and authorities over there are not (yet) cooperating with Europe and US. Michiel van der Eijk From kls Fri May 23 09:03:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:29 From: Ewan Godley Subject: 757 Engine noise over LA Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: College of Charleston I was on a Delta Airlines flight (550) from LAX to Atlanta on the 22nd of December 1996 (on a 757). As we took off from LAX with a full load, I could (obviously) hear the engines at near full (if not full) power. About 30 seconds after take off, as we crossed the coast line (taking off towards the west) both engines went suddenly very quiet. No perceivable noise at all infact. A guy sitting behind me (who had previously mentioned he worked in the aircraft industry), said in a worrying voice "Engine Failure". There was a noticble deceleration in speed, but about 10-15 seconds later the engine noise returned to what I would think to be normal. I though this cut off might be something to do with any noise abatement rules over the LA area, however, when I took this same flight on March 28 this year, under the same conditions of a loaded 757, there was NO change in engine noise after take off. The only differences in the two flights were the courses taken on initial departure from LAX. Both were taking off to the west, the 1996 flight turning 180 degrees and heading back accross the city (after the incident with the engines), and the March flight heading south towards San Deigo befor turning inland. Any ideas what happened on the December flight? Ewan Godley From kls Fri May 23 09:03:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:29 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757 Engine noise over LA References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >... as we crossed the coast line (taking off towards >the west) both engines went suddenly very quiet. ... >I though this cut off might be something to do with any noise abatement >rules over the LA area LAX normally runs departures to the west, as with your flight, so it *doesn't* have to worry about noise on departures. There's about a mile from the western end of the airport property to the coast, and if you look, you'll see all the roads and perhaps a few foundations for a housing development that was started but never completed. I've always assumed the property was purchased by the airport (or some agency on behalf of the airport) to avert noise complaints. Obviously once you're out over the water you don't have to worry much about noise. I can't recall ever experiencing anything like that on a flight out of LAX, and it does sound rather odd. Perhaps you were momentarily being held at a given altitude to provide clearance from other traffic. You were on a 757, which has almost fighter-like climb performance -- maybe the controller didn't expect so quick a climb. -- 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 May 23 09:03:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:29 From: "McElravy" Subject: Food for Thought Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Here is some 747 cibus pro animo for you all, lifted directly off of the Boeing web site. The accents are mine: BOEING, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, the Boeing aircraft livery, >>>the 747 aircraft profile<<<, ADVANCED QUALITY SYSTEM, AQS, D1-9000, BOEING NEWS, FLYTHRU, REDARS, and SHAREVALUE are all trademarks and/or service marks of The Boeing Company. No trademark or service mark license is granted in connection with the materials contained in the Boeing Web site. It is mind boggling that the 747 has achieved the level of fame that would allow its silhouette to be trademarked/servicemarked. Anyone know any more about this? Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Fri May 23 09:03:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:30 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >It is mind boggling that the 747 has achieved the level of fame that would >allow its silhouette to be trademarked/servicemarked. Anyone know any more >about this? You have to admit that it's quite distinctive, and if you show a bunch of planes to a random sampling of people and ask them what it is, odds are the 747 is the only one most will be able to identify. That sort of recognition is pretty impressive when surprisingly many people are hard-pressed to even tell you whether the plane they just got off had one or two aisles. It may also be an attempt by Boeing to, in effect, extend their patent on the design, which would have expired long ago. The patentable idea was, I assume, moving the cockpit up above the main cabin deck to allow unobstructed cargo access all the way to the nose (and through the nose in the freighter versions). -- 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 May 23 09:03:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:30 From: Joseph Edward Nemec Subject: Continental to choose Boeing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Muppet Institute of Technology I read in the WSJ this morning that Continental Airlines has tentatively agreed to purchase 40 Boeing aircraft, including 10 777s and 30 767-400ERs. I don't know the model of 777 that they have agreed upon. I want to give a hand to H. Andrew Chuang, who I believe pointed out that the deal was not yet in Airbus' hands. I was sure, after reading Continental's statements about the A330-200, that they would choose the European consortium to replace the DC-10s. The WSJ also mentioned that the board of Continental would be presented with two different agreements to vote on: one containing firm orders for 40 aircraft, and one containing firm orders for 40 aircraft, plus an exclusive- supplier agreement. Any comments? Think Van Miert will blow a gasket? From kls Fri May 23 09:03:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:30 From: chas@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Ilkley Bear) Subject: Re: Cruising speeds - 727, 737, 767, 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Edinburgh University Tom Atkinson writes: >Hello all, >Please could somebody enlighten me as to the crusing speeds of these >aircraft: >727 (200) >737 (300 or 400) >767 >747 (200, 300 or 400) I recently read a lovely book. It might have been called the 'Science of Flight', but I would have to go back and check. It is a survey of aerodynamics as applied to aeroplanes, birds, and insects, making as little distinction between the various forms as possible. In this book, the comment is made that the 747 cruises at what is, anyway, the optimum speed for its size. The 737 cruises faster than it should, because otherwise it would make difficulties for Air Traffic Control. Any comments? Chas -- ( o o ) Chas Spencer, User Support, ( Y ) Edinburgh University Computing Service ( * ) Why not read the Bible Chapter of the Week? ( ) ( ) The URL is http://www.ed.ac.uk/~chas/bible/ From kls Fri May 23 09:03:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:30 From: D Snow Subject: Re: American 737-200's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > Hey there can anyone out there tell me what ever happen to the 737-200's > that American inherited from AirCal and retired. To my knowledge they are at Southwest, well some at least. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie (SBNOOU2) From kls Fri May 23 09:03:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:30 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , Matthew Willshee <96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 9 May 1997, dzul wrote: > > > > > > > if the wheel brakes gets too hot (if u do not use the reverse thrust), u need > > a lot of time to cool them off. > > UK Channel Four television screened "21st Century Aircraft", a series > which followed the certification of the 777 late last summer. I should > think something similar was shown in most other places. > > One bit I found especially interesting was a part of the flight test > programme that involved braking from V1 (I think) to a standstill using > wheel brakes with the engines at full power. There was a minimum time > limit that the plane then had to stand (the brakes glowing red hot) > without the undercarriage catching fire. Not quite correct, but close. The RTO test (Refused Take Off) consists of accelerating the airplane to takeoff speed (in this case 210 mph) and then closing the throttles and stopping the plane using the wheel brakes alone. The engines are not producing any power once they spool down. John Cashman, the chief pilot on the 777 program, told me that initially it seems as though the plane will never slow because at first, even though the power levers are pulled to idle, the engines are still producing thrust against the brakes. Then once the engines spool down, the brakes begin to take effect with the result you saw on the television show. The flames you saw was lubricating grease that caught fire- none of the brake components themeselves caught fire. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri May 23 09:03:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:30 From: "S. Buining" Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology Matthew Willshee wrote: > > On 9 May 1997, dzul wrote: > > > > > > > if the wheel brakes gets too hot (if u do not use the reverse thrust), u need > > a lot of time to cool them off. > One bit I found especially interesting was a part of the flight test > programme that involved braking from V1 (I think) to a standstill using > wheel brakes with the engines at full power. There was a minimum time > limit that the plane then had to stand (the brakes glowing red hot) > without the undercarriage catching fire. Another interesting item about the braking is the fact that the brakes can get pretty hot, but letting them cool down often does not require replacement. Due to the temperature rise, the tires will expand (due to internal pressure increase) and if the pressure gets to high, a pressure fuse will blow, letting the tire run empty. This is to prevent a tire burst (which can have pretty nasty consequences). Once i read an article in a newspaper where the author didn't exactly understand how this worked. He/she wrote: 'During a rejected take-off of an MD-11, the pilot, as a precaution, let the tires run empty....' I am still wondering where in the cockpit i can find the button to do so!? Michiel van der Eijk From kls Fri May 23 09:03:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:30 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >On at least some -- I would have thought many -- aircraft, ground >spoilers are one of those systems which are not available until the >WOW (weight-on-wheels) or other ground sensors determine that the >aircraft is on the ground. Thus, ground spoilers cannot be part of >the process you describe on aircraft so designed, unless you were >only referring to air spoilers (aka speed brakes). Yes, that is true. It's a fine definition though. A spoiler is a spoiler. When the plane is flying they are used as inflight speed brakes, when the a/c lands the same spoilers (mostly) are used as ground speedbrakes. On the 767, the programming changes, thus sending some spoilers up further than they are able to before the prox switches determines the a/c is "on the ground." However, the same spoilers are used whether they are used as speed brakes in flight or on the ground. For ground speedbrake operation, all panels are utilised. For inflight speedbrake operation, outboard spoilers deploy further up (in degrees) than the inboards and one spoiler on each wing is locked out. In addition, all the spoilers are used for lateral assistance (to improve roll control) when the control wheel is moved, depending on which wing is to be lifted and which wing is to be dropped. Regards, -- Simon Craig --- I complained because I had no PowerMac; then I met a man who used Windows." - Cloyce Sutton From kls Fri May 23 09:03:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:30 From: (Ragamuffin) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises On 17 May 97 15:15:47 , l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) wrote: > We used to pride ourselves on being able to "turn" a plane that >was stopping for fuel with less than ten minutes block time. Seaboard- >World's Operations Manual specified the plane must remain on the blocks >for at least one hour after landing at near max landing weight. That >requirement ruined our "block-times" for fuel stops, but SW pilots were >certain the brakes were cooled down before starting to taxi out. How long would it take for the brakes to cool down on average? From kls Fri May 23 09:03:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:31 From: hartmann@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jason Hartmann) Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder In article , Eo Khai Chien Stanley wrote: >On 30 Apr 97 03:19:10 , "Thomas.Enblom" > wrote: > >>How much runway length is needed for an air braking B747-400 compared >>to using thrust reversers? > > ??? If a 747 tried to stop with just the reversers and spoilers it would take it more than twice as far to stop than using just the wheel brakes and spoilers. Jason From kls Fri May 23 09:03:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:31 From: jfmezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Crash survivability and seat position Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca There are a few publications which state that one should sit at the back of a plane to increase one's odds of surviving a crash. Is this based on urban legend ? Is this based on statistics for a certain type of aircraft ? Is this only for a certain type of accident ? Is this based on scientific studies of aircraft structures ? Or is this actually true for all types of aircraft and all types of crashes ? Would the very end of the plane be safer than sitting just behind the wings ? From kls Fri May 23 09:03:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:31 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: ValuJet MD-80's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Can anyone tell me how many MD80's that ValuJet still flies. I know of one that Douglas took back because of lack of money for the lease,It's now sporting a nice new white paint job in Santa Barbara. Thanks David From kls Fri May 23 09:03:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:31 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ValuJet MD-80's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Can anyone tell me how many MD80's that ValuJet still flies. None, and they never have flown any in revenue service. They had picked up several but had not put them into service before the FAA grounded ValuJet. (The oxygen generators being blamed for the crash of flight 591 came from one of the MD-80s that was being reconfigured for ValuJet.) -- 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 May 23 09:03:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:31 From: Christopher Stacy Subject: slat controls Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pilgrim Telephone On the MD-11 there is some sort of protective cover over the zero degree detent gate of the flap/slat handle. This was due to AD 92-26-03. Exactly what do the relevent detent gates and the cover look like? From kls Fri May 23 09:03:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:31 From: dceightray@hairmail.net (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: Starting large piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA Reply-To: dc8ray@hairball.net A while back, I flew Convair 240, 340, 440's. We used that aircraft batteries to start them all the time (P & W R-2800). These were lead acid, 28 volt dc batteries (2 installed on the convair). No problem. Ray Clawson Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. Cardinal Wolsey (1475?-1530) When responding via Email, use >>>>> dc8ray@airmail.net <<<<<. This is to spoil bulk email spammers when I use this program as a newsgroup reader and poster. From kls Fri May 23 09:03:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:31 From: "Marc Schaeffer" Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article LuisB wrote : >> They (727's) will be replaced with A321, however I don't know the >> exact date where this change will take place. > Iberia had 8 A-321 on order but they were canceled last year. - Why/when was this order canceled ? - What planes will Iberia use to replace the B727's ? -- Marc SCHAEFFER, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) "The advantage of the Alzheimer disease is that every day you meet new people" Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Fri May 23 09:03:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:31 From: perera@husc.harvard.edu (cillin johann perera) Subject: Re: Black Patch Under Cockpit References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: dis >Anti-glare surface for the pilots. Note that it's a matte finish, instead >of polished like the rest of the aircraft. Look at all the navy planes as >well. yes, but why no longer? has glare been eradicated? :) -c From kls Fri May 23 09:03:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:31 From: "Jeffrey R. Hacker" <#jhacker@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: #jhacker@ix.netcom.com Malcolm Weir wrote: > One of the issues affecting the 727 is that there was no natural > successor to the aircraft until the 737-800 came along, at least from > a US manufacturer. I would have thought the MD8x/MD9X series was competitive to the 727. American, Continental, Delta, and TWA have bee largely using them in that role, as has been Alaska. I've even seen (a couple of years ago, not today) American operate an MD80 IAD-LAX every evening. Jeff From kls Fri May 23 09:03:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:31 From: "J. Heilig" Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Precision Scale Graphics Malcolm Weir wrote: > One of the issues affecting the 727 is that there was no natural > successor to the aircraft until the 737-800 came along, at least from > a US manufacturer. Gee, I seem to remember that being the main selling point of the 757 back in '82 and '83... Jennings From kls Fri May 23 09:03:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:32 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> One of the issues affecting the 727 is that there was no natural >> successor to the aircraft until the 737-800 came along, at least from >> a US manufacturer. >Gee, I seem to remember that being the main selling point of the 757 >back in '82 and '83... Delta's usual mainline configuration has 149 seats on a 727-200, while their 757s have 182 seats. While the 757 started off as a replacement for the 727, 33 more seats puts it in a significantly different market niche. The fact that Boeing, under pressure from launch customer British Airways, arguably made the 757 too big left the opening for Airbus to produce the A320 and make it the success in the market which it has become. -- 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 May 23 09:03:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:32 From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Memories of late TWA 707 flights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. In article , jimcam@arctic.ca wrote: >On 1997-05-09 zeno@magicnet.net said: > ze>I have many fond memories of 2 flights I took on TWA 707s, from St. > ze>Louis to Pittsburgh, and then back from Pittsburgh to St. Louis, > ze>during the Christmas holidays of 1981. The open air overhead > ze>storage areas with no closing doors, the cruising at 41,000 feet. > >41,000 feet from Pittsburgh to St. Louis??? >How about 31,000 feet. 41,000? Why not assuming the plane can get there. PIT-STL is what, about 500 miles? I've been on many UA 757's that fly SFO-SNA, 372 miles, at 41,000. Since they're so light (little fuel), they can get there and that's where they're cheapest to operate. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Fri May 23 09:03:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:32 From: airbearzln@aol.com (AirBearZln) Subject: Re: Materials testing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Negative Negative Negative. Happens all the time, especially to bikers. I have a few ounces of stainless in me as well, but as of yet seems to be enduring. Titanium seems to be the preferred insert material these days, good fatigue strength and very good corrosion resistance. The stainless steels are subject in some circumstances to intergranular corrosion, which of course greatly accelerates the fatigue problem. Best source of basic data re aerospace materials is Mil Handbook 5, which all aero engineers have several copies of. Published byDOD, try Naval Publications and Forms Center, 5801 Tabor, Philly 19120. This adress may be obsolete, Ive been retired for a while. Also, Handbook on structural Testing, published by the Society for Experimental Mechanics, contains adequate partial differential equations to cure the worst case of insomnia. Try Fairmont Press, in Liburn, GA. Or, better yet, hire an independant consulting Engineer who can save you thousands of hours of frustration. Robin T. Harrison, P.E. From kls Fri May 23 09:03:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 May 97 09:03:32 From: Eric Peeters Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: <5j8d0h$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: LH BRU Reply-To: Eric Peeters On 30 Apr 97 03:19:11 , stdhuff1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (dg huffer) wrote: >In article <5j8d0h$lsc@kragar.kei.com>, >Eric Peeters wrote: >[clip] > >>Airlines such as the one I work for (Lufthansa), BA and FedEx have made it >>clear they'll need some very large aircraft. I think at least 20 aircraft >>could be sold between the three airlines and selling the 20 others >>shouldn't be a problem. > >I'd seriously doubt that FedEx would ever go for a "super-jumbo". They'd >much rather run two large planes then a single jumbo. They're no longer >using they're 747, and will primarily be buying DC-10s and Airbuses over >the next several years. Major factors in this include: I know it may seem strange shortly after FedEx leased/sold (whichever it is) its last 747 to Atlas, but I'm 101% sure on this. FedEx was and still is the first airline committed to the A3XX, so much in fact they hosted several conferences for potential buyers in order to drum up support for the aircraft. Once the aicraft is finally launched, I wouldn't be surprized if FedEx was the launch customer. They expect to order about 5 of the type, if I remember well... Don't forget that they may not need an A3XX or a B747 now, but their international hubs in the Philippines and France are barely starting operations (up until recently, FedEx didn't provide intra-European service) and by the time they're running at full speed, they might need aircraft bigger than a MD-11 to move their packages between Memphis and those two hubs. Eric Peeters Lufthansa Brussels (not acting on Lufthansa's behalf or with its knowledge) From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:39 From: Pete Mellor Subject: B767 design fault (feature?) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Returning with me on a BA B767 to LHR from a conference in Berlin, my girl-friend was a bit miffed to discover that her seat had no foot-rest. (She is somewhat vertically challenged, and finds that having her feet dangling several inches from the floor does little to add to the comfort of flying.) Thinking she had a defective seat, I did a quick check. All the middle seats in the centre block were minus foot-rest. All other seats had one. (We're talking economy class here!) Can anyone shed any light on this bizarre design decision? Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:40 From: "Marc Schaeffer" Subject: Trouble with RR Trent 700 on A330-300s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On one of the news-servers I read that Dragonair and Cathay Pacific have grounded their fleet of 4 (KA) and 11 (CX) A330-300, because of questions about the reliability of their Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines. The suspensions followed the failure of a Trent 700 engine on a Dragonair A330. It was the latest in a series of single-engine landings by Airbus A330-300 planes from the two airlines. Note that the B777 have not been grounded, they use Trent 800 engines. CX said the airline did not aim at putting on replacement aircraft, while the KA statement said it was evaluating whether to lease additional aircraft on a short-term basis to offset lost A330 capacity. The 15 airplanes could be grounded anywhere between a few days and a few weeks. The problem with gearbox bearings in the RR Trent 700 engine have been identified and understood and a long-term design solution had been found, but would have to be endurance tested before it ! I would like to get comments about the following : - Does anybody out there (perhaps from RR) have more info on these gearbox bearings ? - How long such a redesign will normally take ? - Who will pay the grounding and other costs ? - Are other engine series not affected (as stated in the report) by these problems ? I would appreciate any inputs -- Marc SCHAEFFER, Luxembourg // (marcmsc@hotmail.com) The advantage of the Alzheimer disease is that every day you meet new people -- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:40 From: "Marc Schaeffer" Subject: Re: Trouble with RR Trent 700 on A330-300s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM According to RR information the problem with the RR Trent 700 engines is due to insufficient oil lubricating of the gearbox and the bearing becomes hot. The Garuda planes were not grounded since it's a problem that seems to deteriorate with age. Regards Marc Schaeffer -- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:40 From: Erik Wu Subject: Re: Trent 700-powered A330 grounded in Hong Kong References: <5m9j4m$lpd@chronicle.concentric.net> <5malh4$b6v@chronicle.concentric.net> <5mf4ug$2cb@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Craig Welch wrote: > > Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > > >An update: the flight, KA061 took place on May 23rd. The Kota Kinabalu- > >originated flight was diverted to the Subic Bay airport in the > >Philippines. Also, Garuda Indonesia has also decided to ground its > >Trent 700-powered A330 fleet. > > I would check that source, Andrew. Garuda stated on Friday and Monday > (26th) that they're not grounding any of their fleet. > > Cheers, > Craig Garuda is still flying the A330 for sure. Only Hong Kong CAD (Civil Aviation Dept) banned Garuda operating A330 into/out of HK. Just hour before the announcement from HK's CAD, a Garuda A330 was on the way to HK. The flight was inside HK's FIR when the CAD informed Garuda about the decision to ban the A330. Garuda was given the choice, either diverted to somewhere else or landed at Kai Tak and grounded the A330 there. Garuda decided to divert to Taiwan. From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:40 From: "john r." Subject: Re: B744 engine shutdown question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , FRANK TONG writes >When working on B744 with RB211-524G/H engine powered aircraft, when >shuting down engines, why does the engine control switch on overhead panel >will turn to alternate and alternate ligth will be on for few seconds ? Dont know about this, will watch out on next run. > Also, in the course note, it states that every time you shutdown the >engine, FAFC channel will switch from A to B, or B to A. However, I never >note this happen. Could somebody advice ? I understand that A is always in control unless it fails, when B takes over. This is not the way it was designed initialy, so your notes may be out of date. Our A/C (BA) have redundant channel select s/ws on the o/head panel. Cheers, -- john r. From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:40 From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: B744 engine shutdown question 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 FRANK TONG wrote: > > When working on B744 with RB211-524G/H engine powered aircraft, when > shuting down engines, why does the engine control switch on overhead panel > will turn to alternate and alternate ligth will be on for few seconds ? > Also, in the course note, it states that every time you shutdown the > engine, FAFC channel will switch from A to B, or B to A. However, I never > note this happen. Could somebody advice ? The FAFC looks for a discrepancy between commanded thrust and actual thrust. When the fuel control switch is moved to cut-off the FAFC sees commanded N3 of zero but actual idle N3 so it shows a fail until N3 decays below a certain value (43% or 47%, my memory is vague on this) then it resets. By displaying the engine parameters on the lower EICAS through the CMC you can see which is the active FAFC channel. The selection is fully automatic and there is nothing the pilot can do about it so there is no reason to display to the crew which channel is active. From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:40 From: jsw@isise.rl.ac.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Delta Air Lines fleet renewal References: <5gs3l0$jco@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISIS Facility, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory On 23 May 97 09:03:32 , in , Karl Swartz wrote: >>> One of the issues affecting the 727 is that there was no natural >>> successor to the aircraft until the 737-800 came along, at least from >>> a US manufacturer. > >>Gee, I seem to remember that being the main selling point of the 757 >>back in '82 and '83... > >Delta's usual mainline configuration has 149 seats on a 727-200, while >their 757s have 182 seats. While the 757 started off as a replacement >for the 727, 33 more seats puts it in a significantly different market >niche. The fact that Boeing, under pressure from launch customer >British Airways, arguably made the 757 too big left the opening for >Airbus to produce the A320 and make it the success in the market which >it has become. That makes a big change from the days when BEA were criticised for asking Trident to be made smaller, which somewhat dented its market. -- John Wright From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:41 From: "jla" Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM C. Marin Faure wrote in article ... > > > In article , > > Roger Chung-Wee wrote: > > >I hear that Airbus will be offering a higher gross weight version of > > >the A330-300 to provide more competition for the 777-200IGW. > > If the A330 wants to compete with the 777 it's going to need a new wing. > Increasing the gross weight alone isn't going to do it. Problem is, it will be costly and requires not only new wing, but new landing gear. The 777 was designed with the larger gear, at the expense of the added weight and expense, to support heavier versions of the craft. Airbus did not do this and thus will have to incorporate new gear. -- jla From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:41 From: Alan Wong Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Pete Mellor wrote: > faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote on Sun May 18 00:02:24 1997:- > > If the A330 wants to compete with the 777 it's going to need a new wing. > > On my last flight on an A330, I sat in the jump seat for > a while. The captain said that in his opinion the A330 wing > was brilliant, and the most advanced thing since sliced bread. The A330 is primarily designed as a short-medium haul aircraft and the wing optimised for this purpose. Although I am no expert in this regard, I am led to believe that wings good for low speed handling are not so good for high speed cruising and vice versa. This is probably why the A330 (and the A340 which has essentially the same wing) has a lower cruising speed than the 777, which has been designed from the start with long haul operations in mind (eg 777-200IGW and 777-200X). The lower cruising speed over long flights, can mean extra sector time of an hour or so, putting the A330 with its current wing at a disadvantage compared to 777. From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:41 From: "Chan" Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Damage Inc., Pete Mellor wrote in article ... > faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote on Sun May 18 00:02:24 1997:- > > If the A330 wants to compete with the 777 it's going to need a new wing. > > On my last flight on an A330, I sat in the jump seat for > a while. The captain said that in his opinion the A330 wing > was brilliant, and the most advanced thing since sliced bread. > > Any comments? Yes and No.. I ever read a book, the wing design (this static component) is the most important when designing aircraft. Airbus may sub-contracted it's Landing Gear to Messier, but not for the wing. Once Airbus sub-cont. it's A330 wing to Japan, next we'll see made-in-Japan version of A330. From what I've heard from a pilot who flies both A330and B747-400, B747-400 still more marvelous to fly than A330. The triple slotted flap of B744 does a wonderful job, especially when it's landing. I ever read actually Boeing can reduce it's B744 flap (say become double slotted, instead of triple), which will save weight a few thousand pounds. But they didn't do it because their high requirement of stall-speed factor-safety. This A330 wing has winglets for mainly reducing drag at alow speed, which i don't see it at B777. I don't know why....? (pls inform me if you know..) Chandra (changu@cyberway.com.sg) SIngapore From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:41 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Replacement for Halon fire extinguishant References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com S. Buining wrote: > > David Lesher wrote: > > > > GWilson404@aol.com writes: > > > > >Can anyone update me with the latest status of an approved alternative to > > >Halon for engine fire extinguishers? e.g. is there a planned date for an > > >FAA approval? > > > > Every proposal I have seen involved buying up existing supplies and > > stockpiling same. > > There have been several options. At this moment the Halon replacement > task force (existing of Airlines, authorities and 'Halon-experts') have > not decided on a replacement (as far as I know). Still you have to > question what the hurry is for the European and US markets as long as > there is major production of Halon in Azia (for example India still > produces Halon on a large scale) and authorities over there are not > (yet) cooperating with Europe and US. > > Michiel van der Eijk If I remember correctly I read a small article this past week in "Aviation Daily" that Halon had been reapproved for fire extinguishing applications by the US EPA -Seth From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:41 From: "Chan" Subject: The Threat of Halon Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Damage Inc., I don't see the urgency of replacing Halon (i.e Chlor) by any other media. So far, Halon is the most effective to extinguish three type of fire, the money spent for research of Halon replacement, comparing with other Chlor usage than fire bottle, it's not worth. India, China and other countries still using Chlor, in very hugh amount for any other purposes (air cond., hair spray, paper whitening, etc.). On the other hand, I guess chances of having engine or cargo fire, then airplanes crash due to non fire causes, is very much less. Concern about Halon is good, but it is very insignificant (Halon each fire bottle is less than 90 lbs). Comparing with other Chlor usage with the Halon, is just like putting some salt into the sea. Any comments...? chandra (changu@cyberway.com.sg) From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:41 From: M Carling Subject: Two Unscheduled Landings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch During the month of May, I made two unscheduled landings, one for medical reasons and the other for mechanical reasons. I normally don't post trip reports, but these seemed far enough out of the ordinary to justify an exception. The first diversion occured at about 5:00am on the 4th of May on LH405, which had departed EWR for FRA on the 3rd. I was seated in 1A when the Captain announced (in German) that any doctor on board should identify himself to a FA. I got up and (hoping that there was a doctor on board) identified myself as a former medic. Fortunately, there was a German speaking doctor onboard, as a German (only) speaking pax had suffered a mild heart-attack. I was of virtually no help whatsoever. The decision was taken to land at Dublin, and the doctor and patient (with the Captain) both walked off the plane. The Captain then had to deal with about an hour of paperwork. Once the paperwork was done and the Captain was released back to the plane, we had to wait another hour for 20,000 liters of fuel to be loaded. We landed at FRA about two hours late. The second diversion occured at about 1:00pm (CDT) on UA15, which had departed JFK for LAX, on the 30th. There were a number of strange things about this flight, beginning while we were taxiing. I was sitting in 10F which is a business class aisle seat separated from the window by a small table. It is the only seat in row 10, and a very nice seat. A FA came and said "Mr. Carling, I'm afraid we can't let you sit there. Operations radioed the Captain, and instructed us to move you to First Class." I protested "But we're on an active taxiway. Surely you don't want me to get up now." The FA replied. "OK, as soon as we're airborne, we'll come and move you." I thought this was most odd, as I've never been upgraded so late before. Often while already seated but before the door has closed, but never after the door had closed and the plane has pushed back. So, as soon as the FAs were up and about (and well before the Fasten Seatbelt light was switched off) the FA came back and moved me to seat 2E. About an hour later the Captain announced that the left hydraulic system had a leak, had been shut down and, as a result, we would be landing at ORD for repairs. The Captain explained that having only two of three hydraulic systems was not a problem, but that he was worried about where the fluid might have leaked to. This caused a bit of alarm amongst some of the more worrisome pax. Then the Captain asked the FAs to suspend the meal service and clear everything with 20 minutes. The FAs then rushed around, hurriedly clearing everything, which caused a bit more alarm amongst the pax. We landed without incident, and taxied to Gate C9. One (and later, briefly a second) Custmer Service Agent came to help about 200 pax figure out what to do. No information was announced at this point, and the Customer Service Agent stood in the ramp and answered questions on an individual basis. I stood nearby and listened carefully. In the natural process of pax asking each other what was going on, several asked questions of me, and I answered them. Others noticed this and, being typical clueless pax, thought I must work for UA. So they actually formed a queue to talk to me. I just asked them their final destination and, if it was anywhere but LA, I advised them to get there via anyplace but LA (usually DEN or SFO), warning that their checked luggage would stay with the aircraft. Several were able to get non-stops from ORD, and I directed two groups of Hawaii bound pax (and one Hong Kong bound) to the next flight to SFO, from whence they could catch a flight to Hawaii/Hong Kong. One fellow headed for LA asked me whether he should get on a flight to Las Vegas, and I dissuaded him. I also tried to explain what they could expect regarding their baggage, without being able to make an commitments. There were loads of other sorts of questions and sometimes I had to direct the pax to the CS Agent, but most were easy enough to answer. One woman just wanted someone to tell her that she was lucky to be alive. I was unable to help her. When the onslaught had receded, the Customer Service agent approached me, and said she had noticed what I had been doing, and that sending the HNL pax through SFO had been a good idea, and would I consider working for UA. I declined the suggestion, and she thanked me, and gave me a $25 travel certificate. The mechanics replaced the hose which had been leaking (they wouldn't let me have the old one). We departed ORD with about half our original pax (most of whom had been waiting in the terminal, trying to get on other flights). The food couldn't be served because they had been unable to keep it chilled during the two hours we were on the ground. (They had done a meal service onboard while we were on the ground for the few dozen pax who had remained onboard, but I was too busy to partake.) So I had one last first that day: an Economy class boxed snack served on a First Class plate. M Carling From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:41 From: mbork@redwood.DN.HAC.COM (Michelle Bork) Subject: Missed plane crash.... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hughes Aircraft Company (For those of you who haven't seen any of my posts in the past, I have a morbid fascination with plane crashes.) Yesterday, June 1st, I was observing Air Show Colorado from the balcony of my apartment via binoculars. Air Show Colorado was taking place at Jefferson County Airport, which is one of the highest points in north Denver. The airport is only about three miles northwest of my apartment so I had a great view. I took a quick break from watching to take a shower (after all, it was late, late morning and I was on my balcony in pajamas) and then went back to watching. The plane that was in the air wasn't really doing anything so I stepped away for about five minutes to dry my hair. As I was walking back to the balcony, I started to hear sirens. I looked out the window and saw a big cloud of smoke rising from the direction of the airport so I went out with the binoculars. I could see the rescue equipment hauling tail off of the runway and down a hill and through the grass toward a large building which appeared to be on fire. I joked with my husband that maybe a plane crashed. So as I kept watching, he turned on the TV just in time to hear a report about a plane crash at Air Show Colorado, just southeast of the airport. I missed seeing a real live plane crash by no more than 10 SECONDS!!!!! I've figured out the time by watching the news footage of the crash. The big dark cloud of smoke started to rise immediately after the fireball subsided and there wasn't that much smoke when I first saw it. I can't believe I missed seeing a plane crash by seconds. Anyway, I just wanted to give some background on the crash before I asked a question. They interviewed some pilots who said that the high temperature caused the ambient altitude to climb by almost 3,000 feet. (It was in the mid-80's and the airport is at ~5700 feet). I was wondering exactly how this affects the performance of the aircraft. Specifically during stunts, how much higher do planes have to climb during conditions like this in order to do a 360? Michelle ********************************************************************* Michelle (Wright) Bork Hughes Information Technology Systems mbork@redwood.dn.hac.com a subsidiary of Hughes Aircraft Company Denver, Colorado ********************************************************************* From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:41 From: "Lucien" Subject: Re: Turkey to select aircraft bid this month References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses H Andrew Chuang wrote in article ... >In article , >want. EU simply cannot tell AA, DL or any other airlines that they >cannot sign an exclusive agreement with Boeing. Yes, DL and AA are >big, but the remaining market is still big enough for Airbus and >Boeing to compete. It is not only about competition between Boeing and Airbus, but also about competition between airliners. If large airliners can buy their aircraft cheaper than smaller airliners it may make a difference in exploitation and making profit. In other sectors of industry, this way of selling was already happening in both Europe and the US. So what's new? Lucien From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:42 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: How Old are DC9-15's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Can anyone out there tell me how old DC9-15'2 are there's on where I work and I can find the builters plate to see how old it is. Thanks David Santa Barbara Aerospace From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:42 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 23 May 97 09:03:30 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) caused to appear as if it was written: >It may also be an attempt by Boeing to, in effect, extend their patent >on the design, which would have expired long ago. The patentable idea >was, I assume, moving the cockpit up above the main cabin deck to >allow unobstructed cargo access all the way to the nose (and through >the nose in the freighter versions). The legal concept of "prior art" would make this patent useless. Although the 747 is the most successful high-cockpit aircraft, it wasn't the first by a long chalk. Malc. From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:42 From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Karl Swartz wrote: >>It is mind boggling that the 747 has achieved the level of fame that would >>allow its silhouette to be trademarked/servicemarked. Anyone know any more >>about this? > >It may also be an attempt by Boeing to, in effect, extend their patent >on the design, which would have expired long ago. The patentable idea >was, I assume, moving the cockpit up above the main cabin deck to >allow unobstructed cargo access all the way to the nose (and through >the nose in the freighter versions). The wording of the patent was: "We claim: The ornamental design for an airplane, as shown and described." The patent has drawings of the now-familiar shape, although with a much smaller and hump with an obvious crease between the cockpit and the rest of the fuselage, looking more of an afterthought than on the real thing. The date was 29 Oct 1968, valid for 14 years. On the subject of patents, does anyone know why Boeing did not patent the use of engine nacelles on pylons to get the engine airflow away from the airflow over the wing? -- Don Stokes Operations Manager NetLink Wellington New Zealand don@netlink.co.nz (work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (home) Phone +64 4 495-5052 From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:42 From: "Kathy & Dan Lawler" Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Vancouver, BC, CANADA Karl Swartz wrote in article ... > >It is mind boggling that the 747 has achieved the level of fame that > >would allow its silhouette to be trademarked/servicemarked. Anyone know > >any more about this? > >snip... > > It may also be an attempt by Boeing to, in effect, extend their patent > on the design, which would have expired long ago. The patentable idea > was, I assume, moving the cockpit up above the main cabin deck to > allow unobstructed cargo access all the way to the nose (and through > the nose in the freighter versions). I'd be very surprised if the cockpit being raised above the main deck to avoid obstructing it would be a patentable feature. I think there were both British and American designs in production shortly after the war that featured this arrangement, e.g Bristol Freighter. Also the C-5 uses the same arrangement, it was a contemporary of the 747 so if that was patented by Boeing then Lockheed would have been infringing. The trademark is more likely an attempt to protect a design that couldn't be patented, although a trademark is not as strong a protection as a patent... or do you have a reference to patent number for this feature? I'd be interested in reading it. Dan From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:42 From: etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delta Internet Services, Inc. Reply-To: etech@deltanet.com (Eric Chevalier) In , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >It may also be an attempt by Boeing to, in effect, extend their patent >on the design, which would have expired long ago. The patentable idea >was, I assume, moving the cockpit up above the main cabin deck to >allow unobstructed cargo access all the way to the nose (and through >the nose in the freighter versions). If this is indeed the case, can we assume that Lockheed has been paying royalties to Boeing for using the idea on the C-5? And what about the Carvair? :) ======================================================================== etech@deltanet.com Eric Chevalier Compu$erve: 76010,2463 etech@netcom.com --------------------- http://users.deltanet.com/~etech/ ======================================================================== From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:42 From: Derek Clarke Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GEC-Marconi Inflight Systems "McElravy" wrote: >Here is some 747 cibus pro animo for you all, lifted directly off of the >Boeing web site. The accents are mine: > >BOEING, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 ... I thought Intel had proved at its expense that you couldn't trademark a number? From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:42 From: Mark Andrew Spence Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: <5j8d0h$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: mkspence@no-spam-ricochet.net Eric Peeters wrote: > FedEx was and still is the first airline committed to the A3XX, so > much in fact they hosted several conferences for potential buyers in > order to drum up support for the aircraft. Once the aicraft is finally > launched, I wouldn't be surprized if FedEx was the launch customer. > They expect to order about 5 of the type, if I remember well... The development cost for this aicraft is supposed to be around $15-billion. What is the projected selling price for othe A3XX, and how many would Airbus need to sell just to break even? Also, has Airbus officially given this project the go-ahead? M.S. From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:42 From: jjbivng@HoTMaiL.com (Joe J. Budion, IV) Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: <5j8d0h$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Budion Family Reply-To: jjbivng@HoTMaiL.com FedEx dumped our 747's because they were gas hogs, had to have their own can type, and they were not fitting into our route system...FedEx might buy the A3XX if they can help design it to over come these problems...I think that in general theough FedEx would rather run 2 or 3 10's instead of a SJ... A mechanical would not mean as many delayed packages on a 10 as on a SJ... Joe Our FedEx MD-11 was flying over the MEM (Memphis, TN) SuperHub with a fresh load of cargo from DTW (Detroit, MI) on 23 May 97 09:03:32 when Eric Peeters keyed the mike and said: (((((clip))))) From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:42 From: gt1086c@prism.gatech.edu (Gregory Glockner) Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: <5j8d0h$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Eric Peeters writes: >Don't forget that they may not need an A3XX or a B747 now, but their >international hubs in the Philippines and France are barely starting >operations (up until recently, FedEx didn't provide intra-European >service) and by the time they're running at full speed, they might >need aircraft bigger than a MD-11 to move their packages between >Memphis and those two hubs. But besides routes between their big hubs, does FedEx really have a use for a super-jumbo? At best, this represents maybe 10 A/C. Given the development costs, it might be cheaper to run double runs of current planes (principally MD-11's). -- Gregory Glockner http://akula.isye.gatech.edu/~greg/ Graduate Research Assistant greg@akula.isye.gatech.edu Logistics Engineering Center School of ISyE, Georgia Inst. of Technology From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:42 From: jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam]> Subject: TWA 800 technical question. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam] I do not wish to speculate, rather, I would like to have better understanding, hence the questions below. 1- Has the NTSB concluded that the "incident" began INSIDE the central fuel tank, or has it only concluded that as part of the destruction, the central fuel tank exploded and that the source of explosion was near or at the central fuel tank ? 2- Considering that the fuel tank was almost empty. Considering it is near an air conditioning pack. Is it potentially/conceptually possible that a ruptured hot bleed air tube would have heated the central fuel tank to a point where the pressure inside the tank caused by increased temperature and expansion of the air inside would have caused a rupture at a weak point in the tank, causing a fuel leak ? - Are the central fuel tanks capable of being pressurized or are they by design equalized to the cargo cabin pressure ? (eg: would heating of the tank filled with air cause a higher internal pressure?) - Is it plausible that a hot bleed air tube would rupture without causing an alarm ? Would such an event be recorded in the FDR, would investigators at the NTSB be able to deduct such a failure or would the destruction from the explosion make such a failure untraceable ? Again, I do not wish to speculate, just wish to have a better understanding on how the above systems are designed. From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:43 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TWA 800 technical question. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >1- Has the NTSB concluded that the "incident" began INSIDE the central > fuel tank, or has it only concluded that as part of the destruction, > the central fuel tank exploded and that the source of explosion was > near or at the central fuel tank ? The pedantic answer is that the NTSB has reached no conclusions at all yet. Their informal comments indicate that they are certain, or very nearly so, that they breakup of the aircraft began with an explosion inside the center fuel tank. They have no evidence to support any of the theories regarding what sort of event might have triggered that explosion -- theories involving both internal and external triggering events remain consistent with available evidence, at least according to public comments. >Is it potentially/conceptually possible that a ruptured hot bleed air >tube would have heated the central fuel tank to a point where the >pressure inside the tank caused by increased temperature and expansion >of the air inside would have caused a rupture at a weak point in the >tank, causing a fuel leak ? Probably not, since the fuel tanks are vented. (The information released so far mentions sooting of one of these vent lines from the starboard wing.) > - Are the central fuel tanks capable of being pressurized or are they > by design equalized to the cargo cabin pressure ? (eg: would heating > of the tank filled with air cause a higher internal pressure?) Neither -- the fuel tanks are essentially unpressurized. They must be able to withstand some pressure differential, but they are vented to the outside and thus any pressurization would be minor and temporary. Cargo holds are part of the pressure vessel and are pressurized to the same pressure as the main cabin. -- 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 Jun 4 01:45:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:43 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Baggage security Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On two recent trips I was carrying suspect items. On trip one I had a souvenir paper knife in my hand-baggage. It was made to look like a dagger, complete with metal sheath (and it only cost 5 zlotys, about 1.50 quid!). It must have presented a fairly startling profile on the X-ray scanner, since the security guys made me get it out so they could check. (Airport: Warsaw Okecie.) On trip two I was carrying a can of zippo lighter fuel, a prohibited item. It must have been qite clear on the scanner, but got through. (Airport: Berlin Tegel.) On every trip for many years I have carried a large Mauser pocket knife in my bag. (The best knife I ever had: the Germans' answer to the Swiss army knife.) The main blade length is *just* within legal limits. I have been stopped at security checks several times, but it has always got through. Interestingly enough, on every occasion that it has been checked, the security guys did this by holding the blade against their plastic id. cards. On only one occasion, returning from Genova, Italy, was I made to check the knife in as cargo baggage (being supplied with a little envelope for the purpose). Any comments? Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:43 From: jfmezei <"[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Braking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca re: brakes getting hot. The transportation safety board of canada at : http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/ has an interesting report on that Canadian Airlines DC10 that aborted a take off in '95 (or was it '96) at Vancouver and ran off the runway. (Do a search on Taipei and it should be one of the first documents displayed). There was mention that after the plane came to a stop, there was fire which erupted on the landing gears, probably due to the brakes being very hot. These fires were quickly extinguished by the fire dept. crews who arrived on site. The report also has an interesting discussion on the actual speed at which an airplane can abort takeoff (V1) and the time it takes to react. This also explains why such an accident during summer (aka: CP) is best handled with evacuation (because of risk of fire due to hot brakes), while in winter (aka: Tower Air 747 at JFK) the risk of fire due to hot brakes would be lesser. Is that a proper interpretation ? From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:43 From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: Braking 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 S. Buining wrote: > > Matthew Willshee wrote: > >snip > One bit I found especially interesting was a part of the flight test > programme that involved braking from V1 (I think) to a standstill > using wheel brakes with the engines at full power.There was a minimum > time limit that the plane then had to stand (the brakes glowing red > hot) without the undercarriage catching fire. > > snip< Due to the temperature rise, the tires will expand (due to > internal pressure increase) and if the pressure gets to high, a > pressure fuse will blow, letting the tire run empty. This is to > prevent a tire burst (which can have pretty nasty consequences). Some interesting mis-info here. The brake test is done with a rejected take-off from V1 but the engines are reduced to idle thrust during the abort. The tyres must remain inflated for a certain period of time after the aircraft stops. With the engines at max thrust and max braking you would never stop the aircraft in the runway distance available with the tyres still inflated. The brake fuse is a fusible plug in the wheel rim. When it reaches a certain temperature the plug melts creating a hole in the rim which lets the air out of the tyre. Fully automatic and very simple and reliable. No pilot input is required. Wheel overheats are dangerous because the rim fails under the tyre pressure and explodes throwing shrapnel outwards along the line of the axles. Never approach an overheated wheel from the side! From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:43 From: Luis Bravo <101523.146@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Iberia fleet renewal Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Iberia Iberia is about to order a new fleet to replace its 28 B-727-200. Now, Iberia operates 4 DC-9-30, 24 MD-87, 22 A-320-200, 28 B-727-200, 8 B-757-200, 6 A-300,4 DC-10-30, 4 A-340-300 and 7 B-747-200. It has oustanding orders for 8 B-757-200 (due in 2000, plus 8 options) and 4 A-340-300 ( 2 in 1997 and 2 in 1998, plus 4 options). Iberia plans to operate only 4 or five types, so is negotiating with Boeing and Airbus for about 4-8 more B-757-200 and 12-15 more A-320. Also, Iberia is talking about to re-equip Aviaco with its 24 MD-87's, leaving place to the A-319 in Iberia livery. In the long distance/big capacity side, the A-300 will go, the DC-10 will go (at least in passengers duties) and the A-340 numbers will grow to 12. Iberia too,identifies the necesity of 4-6 "B-767" class airliners, been this B-767-300, B-767-400 or A-330-200. In the future the B-747 will have to go, but this is another chapter. -- Luis Bravo . 101523.146@compuserve.com From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:43 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: Convair 990's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Does anyone know if there are any Convair 990's or 880's that are still intacted and not made into Coke cans Thanks David Wirth Santa Barbara Aerospace INC From kls Wed Jun 4 01:45:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 01:45:43 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Convair 990's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Does anyone know if there are any Convair 990's or 880's that are still >intacted and not made into Coke cans I just saw the hulk of one at Denver Stapleton (yes, Stapleton) last Sunday. I believe it was a Ports-of-Call 990 though I only caught a glimpse of it from Interstate 70. NASA's 990 (N810NA, which entered service as American's N5617) made its last flight on October 28 last year, a short flight from NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility to Mojave Airport, where it is now on display. Swissair donated one 990 to the Swiss Transport Museum in Lucerne, where it presumably is still intact. Those are the only ones that come to mind, but I'm sure there are others. There's a book by Jon Proctor, entitled Convair 880 & 990, which probably can provide a more complete list. I've not seen the book myself but it's gotten good reviews. -- 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 Mon May 12 18:44:29 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: barf!The.Air.Bulletin@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: alt.airline.schedules,alt.disasters.aviation,alt.travel.uk.air,misc.transport.air-industry,misc.transport.air-industry.cargo,rec.travel.air,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: The Air Bulletin - May 9, 1997 issue - Free aviation newsletter Date: 12 May 1997 17:43:39 -0400 Organization: The Air Bulletin Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5l8305$5o4@kragar.kei.com> [[[m.t.a-i moderator's note: please be very careful when following up to this post. Choose just the *appropriate* group(s) to follow up to. DO NOT follow up to all groups. thank you. --HTR]]] THE AIR BULLETIN Vol. 1 No. 6, May 9, 1997 In this issue: Mechanical failure probable cause of TWA 800 accident Airbus committed to A3XX American Airlines pilots approve labour pact... ...Allowing airline to go ahead with Boeing order Qatar Airways relaunched Luggage to be matched with passenger in the US Cyprus pilot lands at wrong airport to avoid overtime Short notes MECHANICAL FAILURE PROBABLE CAUSE OF TWA 800 ACCIDENT FBI director Louis Freeh said Sunday May 4 that TWA 800's mid-air explosion was probably caused by a mechanical failure. Speaking on NBC's Meet The Press, he added the evidence collected so far would lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation towards concluding a "catastrophic mechanical failure" brought down the Paris-bound TWA Boeing 747 shortly after it took off from New York July 17, 1996, killing all 230 passengers and crews on board. However, he cautioned that neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board, the main authority when it comes to airline accidents in the US, had reached a formal conclusion yet. It is important to note this conclusion was not reached from evidence collected by investigators, but rather from a lack of evidence pointing to other possibilities. The head of the FBI's New York bureau, James Kallstrom, said in two separate interviews that two other theories the FBI was investigating, a bomb or a hit from a missile, appeared less likely. He explained the FBI has "looked at every hole, every rip, and [the FBI sees] no evidence of high explosive. [The FBI has] no evidence of a piece of shrapnel from a missile or a warhead going through the plane." Investigators recovered more than 95% of the jet from the ocean bed and used the debris to build a mock up of the plane, including 92 feet (28 metres) of the aircraft's centre fuselage, where the explosion occurred. Mr. Kallstrom said investigators would go over all parts of the aircraft again, to try and "explain every hole in the plane". He hoped it would allow the FBI and the NTSB to reach a definitive conclusion on what happened to the plane within 60 to 90 days. AIRBUS COMMITTED TO A3XX Speaking at a briefing for aviation specialists, Airbus officials said the launch of the super jumbo Airbus A3XX was "inevitable" and would happen within 2 years. The group's A3XX marketing director, Robert Lange, said the development of the super jumbo would form the key plank of the European manufacturer's ambitions to topple Boeing from market dominance. The USD 8 billion project enjoys support from 19 airlines providing design and cost-control input to the European consortium. The first aircraft should enter service in 2003 in a three class 550 seat versions, but later all economy 1000 seat stretch versions are already planned for the Japanese domestic market. The aircraft will be suited to traffic growth in Asia, according to Airbus officials, pointing to the focus group in which almost all major Asian carriers are represented. Airbus intends to deliver the first A3XXs in 2003. Although wider than the 747, the aircraft is not much bigger, enabling it to land at all airports capable of accepting 747s. Boeing executives in January claimed that making an aircraft to carry more than 600 passengers was "financial suicide" but Airbus senior vice president John Leahy said worsening airport congestion around the world and a forecast tripling in global passenger traffic by 2020 would necessitate the building of aircraft larger than the Boeing 747, currently the world's largest passenger plane. AMERICAN AIRLINES PILOTS APPROVE LABOUR PACT... American Airlines pilots ratified a new five year labour contract, following months of negotiations between the airline and the pilots union after the previous contract expired in August 1994. The Allied Pilots Association submitted an agreement it reached with airline officials more than a month ago [The Air Bulletin - Vol. 1 No. 2] with the recommendation that its members approve the deal. According to American Airlines, 69.3 percent of the 9300 pilots did just that. The ratification by the pilots avert the threat of a second strike after a brief strike in February marked the failure of negotiations. Under the new five-year contract, pilots will get a 9 percent wage increase and stock options. The deal also includes a compromise on the most hotly contested issue regarding which pilots will fly new jets American plans to buy for its regional jet carrier, American Eagle. American had wanted American Eagle pilots, who are paid less than APA members, to fly the smaller, regional jets so the company can remain competitive with low-cost carriers. The APA pilots were concerned that the American Eagle pilots would eventually take over their current routes. The new contract new contract guarantees that furloughed APA pilots will be able to fly the new jets that the carrier is buying for American Eagle. The airline said the brief February strike as well as its after-effects and further threats of strikes resulted in diminished passenger bookings, costing the airline USD 70 millions in loss revenue in its first quarter. ...ALLOWING AIRLINE TO GO AHEAD WITH BOEING ORDER American Airlines restructured its USD 6 billion deal with aircraft manufacturer Boeing, after purchases of at least 14 planes had been delayed due to the lack of a labour pact between the airline and its pilot union. American confirmed orders for 75 Boeing 737s, 12 Boeing 757s, four extended-range Boeing 767-300s and an undetermined number of Boeing 777 aircraft. The main difference with the original deal lies in the delivery schedule, which has been moved back several weeks. The first delivery, an extended range B767-300, is now scheduled for Spring 1998, and the last one for March 2004, with a B737. The number of B777 American will order is not known yet as the airline has still to choose between two types of the aircraft. In order to compensate for a lack of capacity due to the delayed B737 delivery schedule, American Airlines will huskit more older B727s than it had planned, in order to make them compliant with stricter noise regulations to come into force on January 1, 2000. QATAR AIRWAYS RELAUNCHED Three year old Qatar Airways was relaunched earlier this week to change its corporate identity from a budget traveller airline to appeal to first and business class passengers, generating more revenues. "We are repositioning ourselves to take advantage of the market in Qatar and the lower Gulf to offer a product that will appeal to wealthy Qataris, Gulf nationals and first world corporate travellers, in addition to expanding our India and Philippines service," said general manager Michael Hewitt at the annual Arabian Travel Market exhibition in Dubai. He added the process would be completed in about 20 weeks. Currently, the airline attracts mainly labourers from the Indian subcontinent coming to the United Arab Emirates to find employment. The relaunch would involve a total refurbishment of the airline's eight aircraft and would be paid for with a 70 million riyal (USD 19 million) interest-free government loan granted two weeks ago, according to Mr. Hewitt. The plan also calls for the expansion of the current 30 city network with the introduction of daily flights to London Heathrow and the doubling of capacity to India as well as the addition of in-flight video entertainment and alcohol on board from June. Alcohol consumption is banned by Islam and restricted in most Gulf states. The airline is 70 percent owned by the Qatar ruling family, with the foreign minister as its chairman. Qatar Airways has taken its two Boeing 747s out of scheduled service and plans to lease them as charters, leaving four Boeing 727s and two leased Airbus A300-600s on scheduled flights. LUGGAGE TO BE MATCHED WITH PASSENGERS IN THE US US airlines started a nationwide domestic trial Tuesday May 6 to match passengers with luggage as a way to intercept terrorists who might try to get a bomb on a plane in an unaccompanied bag. This process involves making sure that all passengers with checked baggages are on-board an aircraft before it leaves the gate. In case a passenger is not on-board the aircraft, his luggage must be unloaded from the aircraft before it is allowed to take off. The trial follows recommendations by a special White House commission on air travel security formed after the mid-air explosion of TWA 800, first thought to be due to a criminal act. The trial will run for about 2 weeks, according to the Air Transport Association, a body representing most major US airlines. ATA vice-president for policy and planning John Meenan said this new procedure could cause delays in case a passenger was not on board a plane for which he checked a bag. In the past, the plane would leave with the bag and without the passenger. "But in the trial, if they find you are not there, they must find your bag in the belly of the plane," Mr. Meenan said. "The delay can be very significant." He also explained that a delay could have a cascading effect, as a plane being searched for an absent passenger's luggage may prevent another aircraft from taking its place at the gate and causing passengers to miss connections, not to speak of the plane arriving too late at its destination for passengers to make their connections. He said if one plane was held up for an hour at a busy airport, that would prevent another aircraft from landing and taking its place at the gate, as well as cause passengers to miss connections. However, airlines can suspend the trial if delays run longer than 20 minutes, according to FAA spokeswoman Rebecca Trexler. Bag matching is already a normal procedure on international flights leaving the US and on flights in Europe. CYPRUS PILOT LANDS AT WRONG AIRPORT TO AVOID OVERTIME A Cyprus Airlines pilot on a scheduled flight with 153 passengers on board landed at the wrong Cyprus airport on Monday May 6 in order to avoid working overtime for less than 10 minutes. The flight, delayed for 2 hours in Zurich for technical reasons, was due to land on the Mediterranean island's Larnaca airport, but the pilot elected to land at Paphos instead, barely 150 km (90 miles) away from the aircraft's scheduled destination, following work-to-rule measures called for by the airline's pilot union to protest moves to transfer some Cyprus Airlines activities to its charter subsidiary, Eurocypria. According to the airline, it would have taken the plane 5 to 6 minutes more to land to its intended destination. Instead, buses and taxis were used to bring the passengers to their final destination while the pilot checked in into a luxury hotel at the company's expense. "This was foolish, irresponsible and arrogant behaviour which in the final analysis undermines the company itself and undermines the Cypriot economy," Finance Minister Christodoulos Christodoulou told reporters. He warned the union such incidents could affect the airline's application for a new loan guarantee by the government. "It will not be handled favourably if this will continue to be the behaviour of those guiding employees in Cyprus Airways," Mr. Christodoulou warned. This is not the first ridiculous incident to occur at the Cypriot airline. Las week, caterers delayed a flight for more than 45 minutes when they went on strike to protest a management decision forbidding them to watch television while working. They started an hour long strike when their TV set was removed. SHORT NOTES TWA joins British Airways [The Air Bulletin - Vol. 1 No. 5] in protesting the resumption of Air Algérie flights at the Paris Charles de Gaulle airport. The US airline has decided not to use a gate it was allocated because it would involve parking one of its planes next to an Air Algérie aircraft. Instead, the TWA aircraft parks further out and passengers are bused to and from the aircraft. EuroControl has introduced new radio frequencies to cope with increased congestion in the VHF communication band allocated to air traffic control communications. The new frequencies, affecting high altitude traffic over the skies of France, the UK, the Benelux countries and Germany were established by reducing the channel separation from 25 kHz to 8.33 kHz. Hong Kong based Cathay Pacific Airways received The American Academy of Hospitality Sciences Five Star Diamond Award, which recognizes "an outstanding commitment to in-flight quality, service and safety, a high level of industry professionalism, culinary excellence and impeccable attention to detail". USAirways has decided to cut unprofitable routes, including terminating jet service to 9 US cities, close some facilities and ground up to 22 aircraft in a drive to return to profits. The Air Bulletin A free newsletter for the air traveller To unsubscribe, send an E-mail to bulletin.airnemo@poboxes.com with REMOVE as the subject To subscribe, put BULLETIN in the subject (c) Air Nemo and W2W concept 1997 You may forward it at will provided you do not bring any change to the content From news Fri May 16 08:37:56 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!uwm.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net!europa.clark.net!newsfeed.internetmci.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: China orders 30 A320/321 Date: 16 May 1997 12:27:02 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5lhjqm$s1d@chronicle.concentric.net> As expected, China Aviation Supplies Corporation (CASC) signed a contract with Airbus for 10 A320s and 20 A321s during French President's visit to China. Of the 30 planes, 3 A320s have been assigned to China Southern and 2 to Sichuan. However, earlier reports suggested that the order could be for as many as 100 units. This means Boeing may have a good chance to get some when the Chinese President is scheduled to visit the US towards the end of this year. Also, Airbus Industrie Asia (AIA), Aviation Indutries of China (AVIC), and Singapore Technologies Ltd (STPL) have signed a framework agreement for developing the AE100/A318. You can check the official Airbus press releases on the web: Also, according to Flight International, SilkAir (a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines) will soon announce its order for 8 A319/320s to replace its current fleet of 6 737-300s and 2 F70s. Although the next-generation B737 is selling very well, the A320 family seems to be getting most of the East Asian order. Taiwan's China Airlines is the only East Asian next-generation B737 customer. From news Sun May 25 08:21:40 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Trent 700-powered A330 grounded in Hong Kong Date: 25 May 1997 14:42:30 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5m9j4m$lpd@chronicle.concentric.net> On Saturday, May 24, a Dragonair A330 experienced an inflight shutdown on one of its four Trent 700-powered A330-300 and made an emergency landing in the Philippines. Cathay Pacific and Dragonair decided to voluntarily ground all their A330s (Cathay has 11 and Dragonair has 4). The Hong Kong aviation authority has earlier cancelled the 180-minute ETOPS rating of the said aircraft because of two inflight shutdowns (IFSD) of the Trent engines on Cathay Pacific's A330s in the past month. Dragonair's most recent IFSD is the fifth for the Trent A330 since last November (Cathay had 3 and Dragonair 2). The only other carrier that has Trent 700-powered A330 in service is Garuda Indonesia. Ironically, some Jakarta-bound passengers on Cathay was transferred to a Garuda Trent A330 flight. Cathay says it will try to lease some airplanes to replace the grounded fleet. The grounding should have a davastating effect on Dragonair because about half of its capacity is provided by the four A330s. It's also reported that Gulf Air is considering cancel its Trent engine order for the A330. Other airlines that have ordered the Trent 700 engine include Emirates and Trans World. Since the Trent 700 and 800 are so closely related, I wonder if the problem will eventually show up in the Trent 800, too. Rolls-Royce's market share in the widebody market has significantly improved with the Trent 700/800. Let's see how soon Rolls-Royce can correct the problem, and whether the problem will have any long-term negative effect on R-R. From news Sun May 25 19:02:53 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!newsfeed.nacamar.de!europa.clark.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.3.12.173!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Trent 700-powered A330 grounded in Hong Kong Date: 26 May 1997 00:29:24 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5malh4$b6v@chronicle.concentric.net> References: <5m9j4m$lpd@chronicle.concentric.net> In article <5m9j4m$lpd@chronicle.concentric.net>, I wrote: >On Saturday, May 24, a Dragonair A330 experienced an inflight shutdown >on one of its four Trent 700-powered A330-300 and made an emergency >landing in the Philippines. Cathay Pacific and Dragonair decided to >voluntarily ground all their A330s... [snip] An update: the flight, KA061 took place on May 23rd. The Kota Kinabalu- originated flight was diverted to the Subic Bay airport in the Philippines. Also, Garuda Indonesia has also decided to ground its Trent 700-powered A330 fleet. Dragonair has arranged to lease two planes, one from Air China and another from China Airlines. Cathay expects to have have some leased planes by mid-week. The grounding is expected to last for at least two to eight weeks. Cathay management is in a heated dispute with its pilots' association over the new work rules. The grounding certainly makes the problem even worse. With the British hand-over of Hong Kong to China to take place at the end of next month, Cathay may have serious problem handling the expected higher-than-normal traffic during the period. From news Tue May 27 11:51:43 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!uwm.edu!feeder.chicago.cic.net!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: craig@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Trent 700-powered A330 grounded in Hong Kong Date: 27 May 1997 13:16:59 -0400 Organization: CW&A Pte. Ltd. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5mf4ug$2cb@kragar.kei.com> References: <5m9j4m$lpd@chronicle.concentric.net> <5malh4$b6v@chronicle.concentric.net> Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: >An update: the flight, KA061 took place on May 23rd. The Kota Kinabalu- >originated flight was diverted to the Subic Bay airport in the >Philippines. Also, Garuda Indonesia has also decided to ground its >Trent 700-powered A330 fleet. I would check that source, Andrew. Garuda stated on Friday and Monday (26th) that they're not grounding any of their fleet. Cheers, Craig From news Wed May 28 15:38:49 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!newsfeed.nacamar.de!disgorge.news.demon.net!demon!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.3.12.173!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Trent 700-powered A330 grounded in Hong Kong Date: 27 May 1997 11:42:33 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5mehb9$ni4@chronicle.concentric.net> References: <5m9j4m$lpd@chronicle.concentric.net> <5malh4$b6v@chronicle.concentric.net> In article <5malh4$b6v@chronicle.concentric.net>, I wrote: > >Also, Garuda Indonesia has also decided to ground its >Trent 700-powered A330 fleet. > Sorry. This information is incorrect. I got it from a Hong Kong newspaper which had the incomplete information. Garuda's A330-300 is banned by Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department. Garuda still uses the A330 on other routes. From news Mon Jun 2 01:12:21 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: rmhughes@iinet.net.au (Rick Hughes) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Trent 700-powered A330 grounded in Hong Kong Date: 29 May 1997 13:04:17 -0400 Organization: iiNet Technologies Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5mkcum$gab@kragar.kei.com> References: <5m9j4m$lpd@chronicle.concentric.net> <5malh4$b6v@chronicle.concentric.net> On 26 May 1997 00:29:24 GMT, Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: [snip] >The grounding is expected to last for at least two to eight weeks. >Cathay management is in a heated dispute with its pilots' association >over the new work rules. The grounding certainly makes the problem >even worse. With the British hand-over of Hong Kong to China to take >place at the end of next month, Cathay may have serious problem >handling the expected higher-than-normal traffic during the period. The latest indications are that one aircraft will be modified and back flying this Saturday May 31, with the remainder of the fleet gradually modified to be fully operational by June 06. Rick Hughes From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:54 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW 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 jb7@usa.net "jla" writes: >Problem is, it will be costly and requires not only new wing, but new >landing gear. The 777 was designed with the larger gear, at the expense of >the added weight and expense, to support heavier versions of the craft. >Airbus did not do this and thus will have to incorporate new gear. Feel free to correct me (and I'm sure someone will if its neccessary!) but: won't the new A340-500 have a new wing?...hence new wing for A330HGW. If the A340 new wing is designed for 4-engines-only then that would be a prob....does anyone know? As for landing gear, just tack on the centre A340 section/gear/system as far as I can see. You would have A330s with/without the centre gear just like DC-10-30s and 10-10s. -- -Niels From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:55 From: nak@lucent.com (Neil Kirby) Subject: Re: Baggage security References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T In article , Pete Mellor wrote: >On two recent trips I was carrying suspect items. > [deleted] > >Any comments? I have also wondered about such items. I have often travelled on international flights with home made wine. I bottle in half bottles (375 ml). The bottles are then wrapped in newspaper and placed in individual steel pasta cans. My now armoured wine is placed in checked luggage. Never has it raised any eyebrows. As far as I know, it's never been tampered with - I seal the cans with tape. The steel, I'd think, is opaque to x-ray. As far as knives go, a friend of mine was required to surrender his Swiss army knife at Osaka airport. It rode in a cute little box in the cargo hold. --- Neil Kirby DoD #0783 nak@lucent.com Lucent Technologies - Home of Bell Labs Innovations Bell Labs Columbus OH USA +1 (614) 860-5304 From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:55 From: jveen@tincan.tincan.org (John van Veen) Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Inland Northwest Community Access Network Eric Chevalier (etech@deltanet.com) wrote: : In , : kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: : : >The patentable idea : >was, I assume, moving the cockpit up above the main cabin deck to : >allow unobstructed cargo access all the way to the nose (and through : >the nose in the freighter versions). : : If this is indeed the case, can we assume that Lockheed has been paying : royalties to Boeing for using the idea on the C-5? And what about the : Carvair? :) Not to mention the C-124 Globemaster. -- John There must be a famine comming. Why else would so many people From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:55 From: "Leo Kok" Subject: Re: TWA 800 technical question. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >> Neither -- the fuel tanks are essentially unpressurized. They must be >> able to withstand some pressure differential, but they are vented to >> the outside and thus any pressurization would be minor and temporary. >> Cargo holds are part of the pressure vessel and are pressurized to the >> same pressure as the main cabin. Although the fuel tanks are unpressurized they are subject to fuel loads. Design cases for the fuel tanks are normally those due to the forces experienced under crash conditions (FAR 25.561) Rapid decompression from the passenger cabin to the centre wing tank could also be designing part of the structure. In that case a differential pressure of some 8 psi(FAR 25.965 minimum is 3.5 psi). -- Leo J.J. Kok Structures Research & Development, Tel: (416)375-3363 de Havilland Inc.,Garratt Blvd., M/S: N18-06 FAX: (416)3737361 DOWNSVIEW, Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5 E-MAIL: lkok@dehavilland.ca From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:56 From: swestin@ford.com (Stephen Westin ) Subject: Re: Convair 990's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ford Motor Company In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > Swissair donated one 990 to the Swiss Transport Museum in Lucerne, > where it presumably is still intact. I can testify to its existence in 1988, when I visited the museum. It was on a pylon in the courtyard, at an overhead level. As I recall, there was a bridge to allow entry, where we could see part of the cabin. The original capacity was only about 100 PAX, I believe. -- -Stephen H. Westin swestin@ford.com (spammers to abuse@cyberpromo.com) The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's. From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:56 From: Charles Platt Subject: Hot spot on 757 interior wall Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC On two recent trips by 757, I sat in window seats in emergency exit rows, overlooking the wing. The seats were 16A and 15F. In both cases I found that a vertical area of the plastic wall covering, about 1 inch wide and 2 feet high, was almost too hot to touch. It coincided with one of the "ribs" between windows, and ran from elbow height to shoulder height more or less. Anyone know why these hot spots exist? They don't seem to exist outside of the emergency exit rows. From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:56 From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: Re: Convair 990's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Elivs Presley's 880 (N880EP) is on display at the Graceland Museum in Memphis, TN. You can still go through the cabin and see all the gold-trimmed luxuries, including the bed in the back with a seat belt over it. B2 From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:56 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Logo Technology Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl I recently saw the new Air Canada livery. They have replaced their simple single color maple leaf with a more realistic shaded version. I have seen other examples of logos and livery becoming more complex. Have their been advances in painting technology that have made this possible? From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:56 From: John Vincent Lombardi Subject: Re: 757 Engine noise over LA References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Ewan, The standard initial departure from LAX westbound is a climb to 2000' on a 250 degree heading. Sometimes the tower will lift the level off altitude to 3000' when issuing takeoff clearance. Chances are that further climb clearance will be issued before having to level (by departure control), but sometimes a sharp power reduction is necessary to level and keep airspeed under control. There are no noise problems departing to the west and therefore no noise abatement procedures. I believe there is a VFR corridor through the Class B Airspace (TCA) just off the shoreline. This necessitates the relatively low initial climb clearance. Hope this answers your question. John Lombardi (UAL Capt) 76627,1000@compuserve.com uniphone@pacbell.net John Lombardi 76627,1000@compuserve.com uniphone@pacbell.net From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:57 From: lstone@interserve.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: 757 Engine noise over LA 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: >>... as we crossed the coast line (taking off towards >>the west) both engines went suddenly very quiet. >I can't recall ever experiencing anything like that on a flight out of >LAX, and it does sound rather odd. Perhaps you were momentarily being >held at a given altitude to provide clearance from other traffic. You >were on a 757, which has almost fighter-like climb performance -- maybe >the controller didn't expect so quick a climb. But Karl, your last flight out of LAX was on a dinky 737. We both know a 757 can eat one for lunch and still out climb it. :-) More to the point, there's a VFR corridor along the coast down to 2,500 (although for VFR traffic, a clearance from ATC is required). So when it's in use, a departure out of LAX is going to get a 2,000' initial altitude assignment. Once clear, you get cleared higher. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@interserve.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:57 From: "Forrest" Subject: Re: 757 Engine noise over LA References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TELIS Ewan Godley wrote in article ... > I was on a Delta Airlines flight (550) from LAX to Atlanta on the 22nd of > December 1996 (on a 757). As we took off from LAX with a full load, I > could (obviously) hear the engines at near full (if not full) power. > About 30 seconds after take off, as we crossed the coast line (taking off > towards the west) both engines went suddenly very quiet. Maybe he was trying to keep it under 250 kts? -- LtGerardo@telis.org From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:57 From: Tony Maddern Subject: Re: 757 Engine noise over LA 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 Ewan Godley wrote: >I was on a Delta Airlines flight (550) from LAX to Atlanta on the 22nd >of December 1996 (on a 757). As we took off from LAX with a full load, >I could (obviously) hear the engines at near full (if not full) power. ... >About 30 seconds after take off, as we crossed the coast line (taking >off towards the west) both engines went suddenly very quiet. Any ideas >what happened on the December flight? There is a light aircraft lane running down the coast just off the end of the west runways and if there is traffic in the lane then departing traffic is required to stop at 2000FT (from memeory). A 757 stopping at 2000FT would require a dramatic reduction in thrust to avoid overspeeding the flaps and a marked pitch down to stop the climb. This gives a strong sensation of deceleration. Once clear of traffic climb power is restored and the aircraft can climb away. In all my departures from LAX (747-400) I never had to do this so it is not too common but the procedure is there in the SIDs. Tony Maddern From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:57 From: rstevens@worldsite.net (Ryan Michael Stevens) Subject: Re: 757 Engine noise over LA References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >LAX normally runs departures to the west, as with your flight, so it >*doesn't* have to worry about noise on departures. There's about a >mile from the western end of the airport property to the coast, and >if you look, you'll see all the roads and perhaps a few foundations >for a housing development that was started but never completed. I've >always assumed the property was purchased by the airport (or some >agency on behalf of the airport) to avert noise complaints. Prior to the early 1960's, the hill between LAX and the ocean was covered by a number of expensive ocean-view homes. What you see from above are the remaining foundations and roads from this neighborhood. The number of noise complaints (due to early turbojet 707s and DC-8s) from the residents forced the city to buy the property and destroy the homes. There are reports of people having to be forcibly removed from their homes, luxury homes that had been in the family for decades. The same thing happened on the approach end to runways 24L and 24R as well, but these areas have been covered with parks and long-term airport parking and are not as noticeable as the area by the ocean. There is still one street that crosses the hill that is open to traffic (Sandpiper Street), and is a great observation point when the pattern is reversed. Ryan Stevens 1/2 mile from LAX 24R From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:57 From: smarko@aol.com (SMARKO) Subject: Re: 757 Engine noise over LA References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I was on a Delta Airlines flight (550) from LAX to Atlanta on the 22nd >of December 1996 (on a 757). As we took off from LAX with a full load, >I could (obviously) hear the engines at near full (if not full) power. >About 30 seconds after take off, as we crossed the coast line (taking off >towards the west) both engines went suddenly very quiet. ... >I though this cut off might be something to do with any noise abatement >rules over the LA area, however, when I took this same flight on March 28 >this year, under the same conditions of a loaded 757, there was NO change >in engine noise after take off. At LAX, airplanes normally depart to the west, over the ocean, largely for noise abatement purposes. Perpendicular to and above the departing traffic, parallel the coastline, is a VFR corridor at about 5000 feet. I would imagine that the first 757 cut back over the ocean in part to avoid climbing into the cross-traffic above it. Once the plane was beyond the VFR corridor, it resumed its climb. The second flight was probably not climbing as fast and could maintain separation while continuing its climb. The two flights took different SIDs (standard instrument departures), accounting for the different flight paths. The use of certain SIDs is restricted during certain hours of the day, also for noise abatement purposes. Mark Adams Noise Management Bureau Los Angeles International Airport From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:58 From: Peter & James Liddell <72132.1641@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Black Patch Under Cockpit References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PSPP It's just that modern windscreens filter most of the glare now. -- Peter "All alone in the Lonely Land" From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:58 From: richn@sdd.hp.com (Rich Nute) Subject: Engine start process questions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division A jet engine is started by: 1. Spin the turbine up to some rpm. How many rpm? The spin is either by an electric motor (for small engines) or compressed air (for larger engines). Does the electric motor also serve as the generator? What is the approximate gear ratio between the electric motor and the turbine? How is the spin air injected into the engine? 2. Inject fuel. How is this done? 3. Ignite fuel. How is this done? In the cockpit, what are the engine start controls, and what are the pilots' jobs during engine start? Doesn't one pilot keep a hand on the engine fire extinguisher? Thanks, Richard Nute San Diego From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:58 From: "Mark Taylor" Subject: Re: ValuJet MD-80's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Karl Swartz wrote in article ... > >Can anyone tell me how many MD80's that ValuJet still flies. > > None, and they never have flown any in revenue service. They had > picked up several but had not put them into service before the FAA > grounded ValuJet. Au contraire. VJ flew four different MD-80s in revenue service. Tail numbers 801, 802, 803, and 830. They typically flew MCO-ATL-DFW-ATL-IAD-ATL-LGA. Places like that. They were the first aircraft to have the Critter on the inside left-hand bulkhead facing the passengers. I believe they seated 163 pax. They were a joy to work. From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:58 From: Jan-Erik Andelin Subject: Re: ValuJet MD-80's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland In sci.aeronautics.airliners Karl Swartz wrote: > >Can anyone tell me how many MD80's that ValuJet still flies. > None, and they never have flown any in revenue service. They had I have the unconfirmed info that the planes were ex-Swissair MD81's and an ex-Transwede MD83 and that they went on to Midwest Express. Anyone able to confirm or correct ? Erkki * * * MD80 International Home Page * * * http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/md80.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- Jan-Erik Andelin * phone +358-19-584 622 =C5gatan 63 * e-mail andelin@clinet.fi 06100 Borg=E5, Finland * WWW http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/ From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:59 From: Damon Edmondson Subject: Re: ValuJet MD-80's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: Damon-Edmondson@worldnet.att.net Karl Swartz wrote: > >Can anyone tell me how many MD80's that ValuJet still flies. > > None, and they never have flown any in revenue service. They had wrong...VJ flew several for over 6 months before their shutdown in revenue service. They do not fly any at this time. Additionally, the initial poster states that MD took one back. Also wrong. All of the MD 80s were being purchased, not leased, and were sold at a profit. From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:59 From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Perhaps a silly question (DC-9 barrel roll) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington In article , wrote: > I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me here. On a >recent flight a friend and I were musing on whether a commercial jet (In >this case it was a DC9) could handle a barrel roll. Now I know there are >all sorts of factors to consider like at what speed, and perhaps how fast >the roll itself was executed, but I would appreciate any input anyone >might have. Easily. The important thing about a (properly executed) barrel roll is that it maintains positive G all the way around, so you don't uncover the fuel pumps or otherwise upset anything that would really prefer to be held right way up. It's also a relatively low stress maneuvre. Examples: there was of course the famous incident where Boeing test pilot Tex Johnston barrel-rolled the Dash-8 (707 prototype) over the Gold Cup hydroplane races in Seatle. In _Bravo_Two_Zero_, Andy McNab describes how two Swissair 727s were barrel-rolled as they airlifted POWs out of Iraq in response to the antics of the fighter escort. Even Concorde has been barrel-rolled a few times. Closer to home, I've heard unsubstantiated reports from friends in the aviation community of Air NZ pilots doing aerobatics in 737s on positioning flights. (This was a while ago; I've got a feeling that NZ doesn't do much in the way of non-revenue positioning these days.) -- Don Stokes Operations Manager NetLink Wellington New Zealand don@netlink.co.nz (work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (home) Phone +64 4 495-5052 From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:59 From: D Snow Subject: Re: Perhaps a silly question (DC-9 barrel roll) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Legally, no way. The fuel boost pumps in commercial aircraft are not designed for inverted flight, and a flameout wouldnt be a good idea. Plus, one cant intentionally exceed 60 degrees of bank unless all occupants are equipped with a parachute. Aerodynamically, its possible. Remember that the legendary Boeing test pilot tex Johnston (I believe) rolled the original B707 over a boat race up in SEA a long time ago. He did a very smooth roll, and the aircraft handled it just fine. Most electric jets, such as the B757 and its kind wont let the crew get into such a flight mode. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie (SBNOOU2) From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:59 From: "SpeedBird" Subject: Re: Perhaps a silly question (DC-9 barrel roll) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp hasmith@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote in article ... > I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me here. On a > recent flight a friend and I were musing on whether a commercial jet (In > this case it was a DC9) could handle a barrel roll. Now I know there are > all sorts of factors to consider like at what speed, and perhaps how fast > the roll itself was executed, but I would appreciate any input anyone > might have. I'd say so, although it would be rather lazy and sloppy. The only jetliner I know of that can do a tight barrel roll is the 707. From kls Wed Jun 4 13:03:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:03:59 From: jdknopp@concentric.net (John Knopp) Subject: Re: Perhaps a silly question (DC-9 barrel roll) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Reply-To: jdknopp@concentric.net On 17 May 97 15:15:52 , hasmith@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote: > I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me here. On a >recent flight a friend and I were musing on whether a commercial jet (In >this case it was a DC9) could handle a barrel roll. Now I know there are >all sorts of factors to consider like at what speed, and perhaps how fast >the roll itself was executed, but I would appreciate any input anyone >might have. It'll do it... No problem. A properly executed roll is a one G manuever. Did you ever see the video of Bob Hoover pouring a glass of water while rolling his Shrike? (Only Bob could get away with that!) - John Knopp jdk@apk.net From kls Wed Jun 4 13:04:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:04:00 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Perhaps a silly question (DC-9 barrel roll) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM hasmith@acsu.buffalo.edu asks on Sun May 18 00:56:17 1997:- > I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me here. On a > recent flight a friend and I were musing on whether a commercial jet (In > this case it was a DC9) could handle a barrel roll. Now I know there are > all sorts of factors to consider like at what speed, and perhaps how fast > the roll itself was executed, but I would appreciate any input anyone > might have. Apologies to anyone who has read this before, since I have posted at least two previous messages about it, but in the book "Bravo Two Zero", the author, Andy MacNab (pseudonym) describes how, while he was being flown back from imprisonment in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War, in a 727 escorted by RAF fighters who were doing various celebratory aerobatics, the captain executed a barrel roll to show the RAF smart-asses that he could do one as well! How dependable this information is, I'm not sure. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Jun 4 13:04:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:04:00 From: pierce@pat.mdc.com (Cole Pierce) Subject: Re: Perhaps a silly question (DC-9 barrel roll) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McDonnell Douglas, Houston Division In article , hasmith@acsu.buffalo.edu writes: |> I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me here. On a |> recent flight a friend and I were musing on whether a commercial jet (In |> this case it was a DC9) could handle a barrel roll. Now I know there are |> all sorts of factors to consider like at what speed, and perhaps how fast |> the roll itself was executed, but I would appreciate any input anyone |> might have. Other than Tex Johnston's roll of the -707 in Seattle, I am not aware of any other incidents of this type. If they've been done, they've likely been kept under wraps. However, speaking as a retired USN fighter pilot and current MD-80 pilot, I have little doubt that the DC-9 could pull it off. With sufficient entry airspeed, a modified barrel roll could be completed without exceeding 1.5 to 2 g's on entry and exit. The exit is critical, as scooping out at the bottom might lead to exceeding the DC-9's 2.5g limit. I say 'modified barrel roll' because I don't think there would be a true heading change of 90 deg over the top. Not sure that Tex did a true barrel roll, either, but rather something between a barrel roll and an aileron roll. gun one From kls Wed Jun 4 13:04:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:04:00 From: "John Arsenault" Subject: Re: Perhaps a silly question (DC-9 barrel roll) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dell Computer Corporation hasmith@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote in article ... > I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me here. On a > recent flight a friend and I were musing on whether a commercial jet (In > this case it was a DC9) could handle a barrel roll. Now I know there are > all sorts of factors to consider like at what speed, and perhaps how fast > the roll itself was executed, but I would appreciate any input anyone > might have. A Boeing test pilot ( Tex Johnson ?) rolled the first 707 over Puget Sound in front of a crowd assembled to see the flight. It was not a company approved manuever and I believe he was fired. I recall seeing a video on the TV show WINGS. There was an incident over 15 years ago where a flight crew had inadvertantly rolled a 727. I don't recall all the details but the crew had deployed a unit of flaps while in cruise ( to achieve faster cruise speeds, I think) and one side failed to extend. The flight crew recovered and the rest was uneventful. I believe Boeing provided a mod to prevent this type of activity. If executed correctly you probably could barrel roll any commercial jetliner since it only puts 1 G on the aircraft. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong! From kls Wed Jun 4 13:04:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:04:00 From: airbearzln@aol.com (AirBearZln) Subject: Re: Perhaps a silly question (DC-9 barrel roll) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com No reason why not. No reason except that the FAA would draw and quarter the pilots, arrest all the passengers, and dissolve the airline that owned the airplane. Legent has it that 707 #1 rolled over the crowd at the speedboat races in Seattle about 1957. I know professional pilots who have rolled a number of smaller jets and bigger piston powered aircraft. (NOT me of course). A gentle roll, a meld of a barrel roll and a slow roll, can be done with no negative g. The mistake most pilots make when they roll an airplane that is not s'posed to be rolled, like a Bonanza, for instance, is that they enter from level flight. When they find themselves upside down, they are in a decidedly nose-down posture. They panic, split s out, and either hit the ground or overstress the aircraft by pulling too hard well over Va. I am told it can be done by climbing sharply, about 45 or 50 deg, unloading the elevator SLIGHTLY, putting in full aileron deflection, easing back on the elevator as the airplane goes around. DO NOT DO THIS WITHOUT DUAL INSTRUCTION FROM A COMPETENT AEROBATIC INSTRUCTOR!! You stand a good chance of busting your fanny. rob (Rob Harrison Airshows, AirBearZln@aol.com) From kls Wed Jun 4 13:04:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:04:00 From: "Hans Jakobsson" Subject: MD-80 tailcone Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: . Hello, I have a question regarding the "new" tailcone on the MD-80 series. When did it first appear on any MD-80's and how was it changed - was it simply a matter of changing the emergency exit/tailcone during a longer stop or was more advanced engineering needed? Thanks in advance, Best Regards Hans Jakobsson ~~ Hans Jakobsson, Sweden hansj@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~hansj/747/index.htm Fly the Scandinavian Way. From kls Wed Jun 4 13:04:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:04:01 From: "Mark E. Ingram" Subject: Re: Cruising speeds - 727, 737, 767, 747 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 23 May 1997, Ilkley Bear wrote: > In this book, the comment is made that the 747 cruises at what is, > anyway, the optimum speed for its size. The 737 cruises faster than it > should, because otherwise it would make difficulties for Air Traffic > Control. Any comments? Chas, I am no aerodynamicist, but having flown the 737-100/200 as a pilot, believe that this comment has some validity. For best fuel conservation, we would use a cruise speed of Mach .74. However, other airliners, including 727's and MD-80's, can cruise comfortably at M .78 to M .82. We used to cruise the DC-10 at M. 84. So, if a 737 is "leading the pack" in a line of flights flying the same route in the same direction, then the 737 (200) can be bumped up *almost* to M. 78 to keep the others from having to slow too much. I say "almost," because even though the 737's MMO (maximum Mach) is supposed to be up around M .80, at M .78 there is some trans-sonic buffeting (from the tail section, I think) that starts to make the ride uncomfortable for the passengers *and* pilots. Just shy of the magic M .78, the 737-200 burns a lot more fuel than at M .74, and the wind noise in the cockpit becomes pronounced (IMO). Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Wed Jun 4 13:04:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:04:01 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Ben) Subject: Re: Cruising speeds - 727, 737, 767, 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr chas@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Ilkley Bear) wrote: >Tom Atkinson writes: > >>Hello all, > >>Please could somebody enlighten me as to the crusing speeds of these >>aircraft: 727 (200) 515 kt (953 km/h) 737 -300 429 kt (794 km/h) 737-400 439 kt (813 km/h) 767 460 kt (850 km/h) 747 (200, 300 or 400) 490 kt (939 km/h) source: BCAG From kls Wed Jun 4 13:04:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:04:01 From: "Jeffrey R. Hacker" <#jhacker@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Continental to choose Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: #jhacker@ix.netcom.com Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: > > I read in the WSJ this morning that Continental Airlines > has tentatively agreed to purchase 40 Boeing aircraft, > including 10 777s and 30 767-400ERs. I don't know the > model of 777 that they have agreed upon. > > I want to give a hand to H. Andrew Chuang, who I believe > pointed out that the deal was not yet in Airbus' hands. > I was sure, after reading Continental's statements about > the A330-200, that they would choose the European > consortium to replace the DC-10s. Don't forget that Bethune used to work at Boeing. Wasn't he in charge of the design of the most recent (-600,-700, and -800) series of 737's? jeff From kls Wed Jun 4 13:04:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Jun 97 13:04:01 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Continental to choose Boeing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: >I read in the WSJ this morning that Continental Airlines >has tentatively agreed to purchase 40 Boeing aircraft, >including 10 777s and 30 767-400ERs. I don't know the >model of 777 that they have agreed upon. > >I want to give a hand to H. Andrew Chuang, who I believe >pointed out that the deal was not yet in Airbus' hands. >I was sure, after reading Continental's statements about >the A330-200, that they would choose the European >consortium to replace the DC-10s. I won't take credit for this. I was merely repeating what I read on the web, more specifically, the Seattle Times. Anyway, the order is not official until the contract is signed. I do find Airbus has a habit of prematurely leaking aircraft order information. A few major ones that I can remember: Saudi Arabian's fleet renewal plan (after a French miniter's visit to the Kingdom), Singapore Airlines' B777 order, Valujet's MD95 order, and Continental's B767-400/B777 order. Boeing's biggest blunder was probably last year's possible launch of the B747X. Give Airbus credit for succesfully convincing airlines to withhold their decision. Anyway, a person who's in the business does not think the B777-200X/300X is a sure bet at the Paris Air Show. Will Boeing stumble again? Let's wait and see. IMHO, the A330-200 is the most marketable line in the A330/340 family. It certainly has revitalized the A330 sales. However, in two short months, Boeing will soon have firm orders for 51 B767-400s (i.e., after signing the contract with CO), a few more than what Airbus has got in the past 20 months (not including Asiana's pending order). This got to be very frustrating for the Airbus sales team, especially considering the fact that the A330-200 has a 1,000nm advantage over the B767-400. I think the B767-400 range is quite adequate for US carriers for domestic and trans-Atlantic operations. For European carriers, the A330-200 will be the better choice, if the carriers intend to use the aircraft for services to Asia. For people who have read my posts, it's not a big secret that I have been very partial to the B777 program. I have changed my mind slightly. I still think the B777 will be extremely successful in the Asia-Pacific market where the A300/310 used to dominate. In the US, the B777 will be mildly successful as an international aircraft. In Europe, unless Boeing can get KLM and SAS (less likely) to order the B777, the A330/340 will not have a hard time dominating the B777 in Europe. South America is a market which neither the B777 nor the A330/340 has been able to secure a order. It'll be interesting to see how they will develop in S. America. Nonetheless, most of the market is still in Asia-Pacific, North America, and Europe. The aircraft industry is supposedly to be in a up cycle. However, it has been relatively quiet in the aircraft order scene, especially for Airbus. Thus, I expect a lot of orders to be announced at the Paris Air Show. Airbus and Boeing will sure to have another round of word fight. >Any comments? Think Van Miert will blow a gasket? Well, well, well. Van Miert seems to be telling airlines that they are not supposed to get better deals by signing an exclusive agreement. He doesn't seem to realize that airlines can pass those savings to the consumers. I guess consumers are not on his mind; only Airbus is on his mind. From news Wed Jun 4 22:58:19 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!hunter.premier.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.3.12.173!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Trent 700-powered A330 grounded in Hong Kong Date: 5 Jun 1997 05:15:52 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5n5i28$pju@chronicle.concentric.net> References: <5m9j4m$lpd@chronicle.concentric.net> <5malh4$b6v@chronicle.concentric.net> <5mehb9$ni4@chronicle.concentric.net> Two retrofitted A330s, one belongs to Cathay Pacific Airways and the other Dragonair, return to revenue service on June 4th after certification by the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department. Cathay expects to have its fleet of 11 A330s to return to service by the end of next week. Rolls was able to fix the problem relatively quickly by replacing the current Trent 700 gearbox with the Trent 800 box. Let's hope it's a real fix. The Trent 800 has been in service for only about a year. The first Trent 700 problem didn't show up until after nearly two years of service. IMHO, because of a lack of aircraft and aero-engine industries in Asia, people there tend to be less knowledgeable about airplanes and egines. Thus, I think the airplane and the engine will have a fairly negative image in the region due to the grounding. Cathay, Rolls, and Airbus had better hope the problem won't show up again. Otherwise, no one will want to fly Cathay's A330. From news Thu Jun 5 10:18:08 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Debonair: 2nd MD-95 customer? Date: 05 Jun 1997 12:43:49 -0400 Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5n6qcb$dot$27@kragar.kei.com> Someone on the uk spotters list has mentioned some financial news that Debonair (London Luton, UK) is seeking funding to purchase up to 10 MD-95s. Anyone have more news? -- -Niels From kls Tue Jun 10 00:34:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:34:58 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: A330/340 as freighter Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com I wonder if Airbus has plans to launch a A330-200F or A340-300F. Both planes could fill the gap between B767-300F/A300-600F and MD11F. Does one of the above mentioned planes make sense, or is there no market for such a bird ? -- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@hotmail.com ----> Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage <---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Tue Jun 10 00:34:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:34:58 From: tombros@ifi.unizh.ch (Dimitrios Tombros) Subject: HS Trident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Zurich Are there any HS Tridents still flying (airliner or military)? Why did this aircraft which was so similar to B727 have so little success? Was it some kind of construction or operational problem or just bad marketing? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dimitrios Tombros Database Technology Research Group e-mail: tombros@ifi.unizh.ch Computer Science Department http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/staff/tombros.html University of Zurich From kls Tue Jun 10 00:34:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:34:59 From: jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam]> Subject: Re: The Threat of Halon References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SPC Reply-To: "jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam] Chan wrote: > So far, Halon is the most effective to extinguish three type of fire, > the money spent for research of Halon replacement, comparing with other > Chlor usage than fire bottle, it's not worth. >India, China and other > countries still using Chlor, in very hugh amount for any other purposes As I understand it, in the Montreal Protocol, it was decided to allow third world countries to continue to use CFCs for a longer time period because it was felt that refrigiration of food for disease prevention was more important and that the hardships imposed on 3rd world countries if they were forced to convert would be too great and refrigiration of foods would suffer. There were 2 options: get the richer nations to subsidize the developping nations to help them cope with the cost of switching away from CFCs, or allow the developping nations to continue to use CFCs for a period long enough that conversion to the replacement of CFC would not be such a hardship. This does not mean that CFCs produced in 3rd world countries can legally and freely be exported all over the world. There are a few exemptions in rich nations. One of which are inhalers for asthma for instance (it was felt that butane propellants would not be a good idea, especially if the user is a smoker). If HALON on airplanes is on that list, it does not mean that HALON will continue to be used forever. At one point, the economics of obtaining Halon from depleting stockpiles (or illegally importing it) may result in a substitute product being more cost effective. Considering the lifetime of an aircraft, it would be interesting to see if the aircraft manufacturers are assuming a sufficient 30 year supply of Halon and designing fire suppression solely for Halon, or if they are designing it in such a way that it could be switched to an alternative product which may require a larger tank or different nozzles etc. From kls Tue Jun 10 00:34:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:34:59 From: "S. Buining and M. van der Eijk" Subject: Re: The Threat of Halon References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology Chan wrote: > I don't see the urgency of replacing Halon (i.e Chlor) by any other media. > ... Concern about Halon is good, but it > is very insignificant (Halon each fire bottle is less than 90 lbs). > Comparing with other Chlor usage with the Halon, is just like putting > some salt into the sea. What you are saying is correct, but if everyone has an attitude like this, how do we ever tackle environmental issues? Someone has got to go first! Mike From kls Tue Jun 10 00:34:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:34:59 From: mamula@oz.net (Donald Mamula) Subject: Re: Replacement for Halon fire extinguishant References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Institute for Advanced Thought Reply-To: mamula@oz.net Seth Dillon wrote: >> > GWilson404@aol.com writes: >> > >Can anyone update me with the latest status of an approved alternative to >> > >Halon for engine fire extinguishers? e.g. is there a planned date for an >> > >FAA approval? ... >If I remember correctly I read a small article this past week in >"Aviation Daily" that Halon had been reapproved for fire extinguishing >applications by the US EPA A recent Tech Report from the FAA CRADA folks in Atlantic City had a multi-page report on the approval process that a halon replacement had gone through. I believe I still have it at the office - if so, I'll post details tomorrow. It should also be available from the Atlantic City office of the FAA. -- Donald Mamula Kirkland WA mamula@oz.net All opinions are those of the guest, and do not reflect those of station ownership, management, staff or advertisers. We will provide time for opposing viewpoints... From kls Tue Jun 10 00:34:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:34:59 From: "Richard Isakson" Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WhidbeyNet Don Stokes wrote in article ... > On the subject of patents, does anyone know why Boeing did not patent the > use of engine nacelles on pylons to get the engine airflow away from the > airflow over the wing? The interesting bit of trivia here is that Boeing had to pay a thousand dollars per airplane for the first couple of thousand 727's. The patent for hanging the engines on the aft side of the fuselage was held by a French designer. I think it was around 1700 airplanes before the patent ran out but I don't quite remember. Rich From kls Tue Jun 10 00:34:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:34:59 From: Gary Welch Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Compaq Boeing claimed a trademark (not a patent) on the profile. I don't think any other planes have the distinctive hump. I suspect the goal isn't to keep competitors from using the idea but to keep movie makers from using the profile in crash movies and to give Boeing approval rights for any other commercial usage. From kls Tue Jun 10 00:34:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:34:59 From: kchao@acsu.buffalo.edu (Kuang-Chung Chao) Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UB In article , Don Stokes wrote: > >....snip.... > >On the subject of patents, does anyone know why Boeing did not patent the >use of engine nacelles on pylons to get the engine airflow away from the >airflow over the wing? The nacelles on pylon were first used on B-47 by Boeing. So even if Boeing applied for one, then it would belong to the US Gov't. From William Cook's "The Road to 707", Cook implied that the whole idea was from Boeing's own wind tunnel study. But from Eugene Rodgers' "Flying Higg -- The Story of Boeing and the Rise of the Jetliner Industry," on P.99 he said "Boeing designer had been impressed by Lockheed's decision to use pod on a jet fighter. The decision was clinched when Schairer found German studies showing the desirability of pods." So maybe Boeing didn't have enough claim on it. But I've read nothing indicating that this was the reason why they did not apply. Well, I'm not even sure there was no patent for it. ;) I don't have "From Legend to Legacy", maybe there's more stuff in it, anybody care to check it out? The design was done in 1946, so maybe it was just one of those "in the good old days" thing. ;) regards, kc -- Kuang-Chung "K.C." Chao Tel: +1 (716) 691-5524 Dept. of Electrical and Computer Eng. kchao@acsu.buffalo.edu State Univ. of NY at Buffalo http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kchao From kls Tue Jun 10 00:34:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:34:59 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Niels Sampath wrote: >won't the new A340-500 have a new wing?...hence new wing for A330HGW. >If the A340 new wing is designed for 4-engines-only then that would be a >prob....does anyone know? Yes, a new wing for the A340-500, but no new wing for the A330 HGW. For the A330 to get to the range of a B777-200IGW, it will also need a 90,000lb-thrust engine. Four classes of engine for the A330/340 family... I don't think so! All along, Airbus argued that airlines want the four-engine configuration for the long-haul aircraft. I doubt Airbus will launch an ultra-long-range twin any time soon. From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:00 From: "Marc Schaeffer" Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Niels Sampath wrote: > won't the new A340-500 have a new wing?...hence new wing for 330HGW. > If the A340 new wing is designed for 4-engines-only then that would >be a prob....does anyone know? >From what I read in several places the new A340-500 wing will be a *zoomed* version of the actual one, mainly to save development cost. So it does not look like the cruising speed is going to be increased. If this information will proove correct, I think Airbus makes a mistake. I believe that new tools are anyhow needed to assemble the new wing. This lets me ask the question of what are the ratios of development cost vs. tool costs for a new wing : a) in general, starting with a blank piece of paper b) in this special case (A340-500 and -600) > As for landing gear, just tack on the centre A340 >section/gear/system as far as I can see. You would have A330s >with/without the centre gear just like DC-10-30s and 10-10s. Correct I have another discussion point related to the fuel capacity for the A330-300HGW. The A330-300 has a maximum fuel capacity of 97530 l, the A330-200 of 139500 l, the A340-200 of 155400 l and the A340-300 of 148700 l. (Source Aero intl.) 1) What fuel capacity will the new A330-300HGW have ? 2) If it will get the fuel capacity of the A330-200, the payload will be restricted since the MTOW for the A330 is 230 t and 275 t for the A340. Can this be overcome by adding the centre A340 section/gear/system or are there other changes which would have to be done? Note that the A330-300HGW like I described would be nearly a replacement for the A340-300E, this can't be the aim. Regards -- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@hotmail.com ----> Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage <---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:00 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Concerning the new A340-500/600 wing Airbus wrote in their Apr-97 letter: Recent wind- tunnel trials, carried out by the Aircraft Research Association in Britain, have confirmed the overall fuel- efficiency of the A340-600 -- especially that of its modified wing. The wing is an enlarged version of that already flying today on the A330 and A340, rematched to the increased capacity and range capability. Regards ------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@hotmail.com Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage : WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:00 From: "Leo Kok" Subject: Re: Logo Technology References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM As for Air Canada Maple Leaf logo... is not painted its a decal.... -- Leo J.J. Kok Structures Research & Development, Tel: (416)375-3363 de Havilland Inc.,Garratt Blvd., M/S: N18-06 FAX: (416)3737361 DOWNSVIEW, Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5 E-MAIL: lkok@dehavilland.ca From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:00 From: J P McLaughlin Subject: Re: Logo Technology References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Gecko Group LLC Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > I recently saw the new Air Canada livery. They have replaced their > simple single color maple leaf with a more realistic shaded version. > I have seen other examples of logos and livery becoming more complex. > Have their been advances in painting technology that have made this > possible? I don't know about the new Air Canada livery, but the large photo-realistic tails on the Frontier 737s are actually decals. -- J P McLaughlin The Gecko Group LLC jp@thegeckogroup.com www.thegeckogroup.com From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:00 From: swanevel@total.net Subject: Re: Logo Technology References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TotalNet Inc. Reply-To: swanevel@total.net Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > > I recently saw the new Air Canada livery. They have replaced their > simple single color maple leaf with a more realistic shaded version. I > have seen other examples of logos and livery becoming more complex. Have > their been advances in painting technology that have made this possible? I recently had an opportunity to walk around a 747-400 in our hangar being refitted with additional business class seats in the bubble. They also replaced the maple leaf on the tail, and it appeared to be a decal. I do not work in line maintenance, so I can't say for sure, but it had an 'applied' look, rather than painted-on. Fred. From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:00 From: "John Arsenault" Subject: Re: Logo Technology References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dell Computer Corporation Andrew Goldfinger wrote in article ... > I recently saw the new Air Canada livery. They have replaced their > simple single color maple leaf with a more realistic shaded version. I > have seen other examples of logos and livery becoming more complex. Have > their been advances in painting technology that have made this possible? I know of one technique to paint one of our A320' s with a complex picture involved projecting a slide on to the vertical stab so the paint crew could outline the picture and color in the numbers. Slick little trick dreamed up by a guy in the paint crew. From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:00 From: "duboille" Subject: B737 flaps Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CalvaCom Data Networks International Communications Who can explain me exactly the reason of the 20.000 ft limitation for flaps extension on B737 series.Many thanks in advance. Boris , duboille-737@calva.net , France From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:00 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re:American 737-200s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article D Snow writes: >>Hey there can anyone out there tell me what ever happen to the 737-200's >>that American inherited from AirCal and retired. > To my knowledge they are at Southwest, well some at least. Southwest only has the ex-AirCal 737-300s. Some were acquired direct from American, others came with the Morris Air takeover. They never owned the 200s, altho I do believe one or two were leased for a short time. Most of the American-owned 200s (N-numbers with AC suffix) went to the Kansas City incarnation of Braniff and have since wound up with various operators, including Viscount. I don't know where the leased ones (GB suffix) went and I can't find them in any current US fleet. Regards Brian -- Brian Maddison From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:00 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: MD-80 tailcone References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net Hans Jakobsson wrote: > I have a question regarding the "new" tailcone on the MD-80 series. When > did it first appear on any MD-80's and how was it changed - was it simply a > matter of changing the emergency exit/tailcone during a longer stop or was > more advanced engineering needed? My understanding is that the "beaver tail" was developed and deployed on deliveries after (approx.) 1988, to solve a fuel burn over guarantee problem and to enhance directional stability (yaw-related). Some retrofits (e.g. AA) were accomplished, but obviously not all were re-coned. -- - Bob Mann R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. office 516-944-0900, fax-7280 rwmannco@interport.net http://www.interport.net/~rwmannco From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:01 From: Exiled Expat Subject: Trent 700 step aside gearboxes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Etisalat Emirates Internet Service The following is a Quote of an Airbus Industrie Operators information telex sent 06 June 97 Extra information has been added for extra info to the unfamiliar. "Subject: Information Regarding A330 Trent 700 Further to recent events regarding Rolls Royce Trent 700 powered A330 aircraft Airbus industrie have received many requests for detailed information regarding both the cause and the progress of the investigation. The following is a brief summary of the events which led to Cathay Pacific and Dragonair to suspend operation of their A330 aircraft. A review of the investigation and a desciption of the resultant modification. Summary of events: On Saturday the 24th of May, Cathay Pacific Airways and Dragonair suspended the operation of their A330-300 fleets. The decision was taken, by the airlines, further to an in flight engine shutdown caused by the failure of a bearing in the step aside gearbox fitted to the Rolls Royce (RR) Trent 700 engines. The step aside gearbox is manufactured by Hispano-Suiza. ( This gearbox transmits and redirects at an angle, rotation of a shaft coming out of the engine core to a radial driveshaft which goes to the accesory gearbox. This accessory gearbox drives all of the engines supporting components like generators, fuel pump, hydraulic pump, and air/oil seperator. ) This event was the fourth in flight shutdown involving RR Trent 700 powered A330 aircraft. The first being recorded 11 Nov 96, thereafter 06 May 97, 09 May 97 and 22 May 97. It should be noted that after the third event ETOPS operations on The RR Trent Powered A330 Had been formaly suspended. ( ETOPS stands for extended twin operations which is a program under which a twin engined aircraft is allowed to fly further from a suitable landing site than was previously allowed prior to 1985 if its systems and reliability can be proven over a given time. ) Background information There are a total of 57 A330 aircraft in service of which 21 are powered by RR Trent 700 engines ( CPA 11 A/C, HDA 4 A/C and GIA 6 A/C ( Guaruda ) ). As an exclusively engine related issue there was no implication for A330 powred by P&W of GE engines, Nor any other Airbus aircraft type. Investigation Investigations have revealed that, in each case, a failure of the driving bevel ball bearing occurred. This failure permitted axial movement of the gear shaft resulting in loss of drive and a subsequent loss of fuel supply leading to engine run down. The in service and laboratory findings confirmed that the bearing failures were the result of insufficient lubrication. This was further supported by the fact that strip examination of Trent 800 Step aside gearboxes, on which a more positive lubrication is supplied to this bearing, showed no signs of this anomaly. ( The Trent 800 is a greater powered engine used on The Boeing 777 which is very similar in design to the Trent 700 . It should be noted that the Trent 800 step aside gearbox has not been without its own problems after a number of gearboxes developed cracks causing oil leaks. It was found that oil puddling inside the radial drive shaft was causing an unbalanced condition which led to excessive shaft vibration. This shaft vibration caused cracking in both the step aside gearbox, the lower bevel gearbox and excessive fetting wear on the radial driveshaft shroud. RR has now come out with a mod to drill holes in the shaft circumference to allow the puddled oil to be centrifuged out of the shaft eliminating the shaft oscilations. Half of our engines have now been modified and hopefully it will be the final fix, eliminating the need to inspect the gearboxes on every intransit stop through our Base.) Modification RR and Hispano-Suiza developed a modification that ensures satisfactory lubrication to the affected bearing. The modification has been fully tested and qualified. A retrofit campaign for all RR Trent 700 Powered A330 aircraft is well advanced and the first of the modified step aside gear boxes have been subjected to high power engine runs and flight test all of which have been sucessful. The affected A330 aircraft are now returning to revenue service. Issued by JP Grother A330/A340 Program Director Engineering and Technical Support Customer Services Directorate Airbus Industrie End Quote Just thought a few of you out there might like some accurate info on the subject. Exiled Expat From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:01 From: "Michel Gammon" Subject: Re: Convair 990's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sympatico BAEJS3201 wrote in article ... > Does anyone know if there are any Convair 990's or 880's that are still > intacted and not made into Coke cans There are a number still parked in the desert I believe, ex TWA 880s and I believe one 990. Mike Gammon From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:01 From: Peter & James Liddell <72132.1641@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Convair 990's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PSPP There are huge numbers of ex TWA 880s at Mojave, and there's the cickey international 990 in tuscon as well as several ex Spantax 990s at Palorma, in the Ballerics, and a 880 with no amrking at some runway in the western desert. (It's somewhere north of Albequerque) -- Peter "All alone in the Lonely Land" From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:01 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: Re: ValuJet MD-80's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com One of them N801VV a MD81 is on it's way out of a c check and off to a European carrier. David Santa Barbara Aerospace From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:01 From: midexmke@aol.com (Mid Ex MKE) Subject: Re: ValuJet MD-80's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Sorry, but none of the Vauljet MD-80 series aircraft were aquired by Midwest Express. David Puhl From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:01 From: Pete Mellor Subject: BA introduced design fault (feature?) (Was: B767 ... ) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM As several people have pointed out, the carrier is responsible for the seating plan. (I sort of knew this, but wasn't thinking! :-) Therefore, let me rephrase my earlier query: Why on earth would BA choose to have no footrests on one column of seats, i.e., the middle column D in the centre block in 2-3-2 two-aisle layout? 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 Tue Jun 10 00:35:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:01 From: Ron Adams Subject: Re: Cruising speeds - 727, 737, 767, 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Random Access Inc. +1 (800) 910-1190 Reply-To: ronadams@randomc.com > >Tom Atkinson writes: > >>Please could somebody enlighten me as to the crusing speeds of these > >>aircraft: > > 727 (200) 515 kt (953 km/h) > 737 -300 429 kt (794 km/h) 737-400 439 kt (813 km/h) > 767 460 kt (850 km/h) > 747 (200, 300 or 400) 490 kt (939 km/h) Those are calibrated true airspeeds. We usually use Mach numbers: 727 .84 737 .74 767 .80 747 .82 These are approximate and vary according to wind and aircraft gross weight. i.e., higher headwinds and gross weight required higher cruise mach. (Mach is equal to the percentage of the speed of sound) From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:01 From: BRamanathan@ual.com Subject: Re: Cruising speeds - 727, 737, 767, 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >727 (200) 515 kt (953 km/h) >737 -300 429 kt (794 km/h) 737-400 439 kt (813 km/h) >767 460 kt (850 km/h) >747 (200, 300 or 400) 490 kt (939 km/h) I don't know about the actual cruise speeds, but some of the conversions above are wrong. 1kt = 1.852 km/h. So, for the 747 for instance, 490 kt = 907 km/h, not 939 km/h. bye/balaji/ From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:01 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Trouble with RR Trent 700 on A330-300s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com As a result of my post in this newsgroup I got the following mail from somebody who does not want to be named. Since the information is excellent I decided to post it. >I would like to get comments about the following : > > - Does anybody out there (perhaps from RR) have more info on these > gearbox bearings ? As your follow up says, the problem is inadequate lubrication of the bearing in the "Step-Aside" gearbox, suppplied by Hispano-Suiza. The oil jet is a couple of inches from the bearing, and with the variability in oil jet shape, the bearing can sometimes recieve an insufficient oil flow. The T800 has a similar system, but the oil jet is positioned closer to the bearing, and is thus less affected by variability. The T700 solution is to modify the shape of the end-cap with the oil-jet, so it looks like a lighthouse, but emitting oil not light. It's been engine tested, and rig tested at all possible service pressures and flows, and will provide much improved lubrication. { There is also a possibility that oil type is a factor. Cathay and Dragonair use one type, and see problems...Garuda use another and have no problems. However, the oil jet position certainly can be improved} > - How long such a redesign will normally take ? A redesign can take a matter of minutes (in concept) the main timescales are manufacture andproving the solution. RR's managed all this in under a fortnight. Pretty fast really. > - Who will pay the grounding and other costs ? Ask a lawyer / accountant. > - Are other engine series not affected (as stated in the report) by > these problems ? The only similar design is the T800, and that's supplied a solution. The RB211-524 and -535 are as tough as old boots. -- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@hotmail.com Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage : WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:01 From: jsw@isise.rl.ac.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Trouble with RR Trent 700 on A330-300s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISIS Facility, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory On 04 Jun 97 01:45:40 , in , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >According to RR information the problem with the RR Trent 700 engines is due to >insufficient oil lubricating of the gearbox and the bearing becomes > hot. The Garuda planes were not grounded since it's a problem that seems to >deteriorate with age. The Trent 700 and 800 both use the same gearbox. The 800 had the oil feed to a bevel drive associated with the gearbox in a slightly different place to the 700. Thus the bearings on the 800s run with oil, the 700's without. I am told by someone who *should* know that the affected gearbox bearings only fail after *several thousand* hours of dry running. (Don't try this with your car gearbox at home) -- John Wright From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:02 From: conly@bvsd.k12.co.us (Conly David) Subject: Re: Missed plane crash.... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Michelle Bork (mbork@redwood.DN.HAC.COM) wrote: : (For those of you who haven't seen any of my posts in the past, : I have a morbid fascination with plane crashes.) : Yesterday, June 1st, I was observing Air Show Colorado from : the balcony of my apartment via binoculars. Air Show Colorado : was taking place at Jefferson County Airport ... Hey Michelle, I don't think that missing the crash should really make you that depressed. I was at the actual airshow (taking a break from my volunteer job of flagman for parking) when the crash occured. I saw the plan go into the loop and then disappear out of sight under Jeffco (the airport is somewhat on a hill). The next thing that I saw was a fireball. In the movies, fireballs are second nature, but when you witness it first hand it really hits home. As an airline pilot hopeful, this crash will stay in my memory for the rest of my life. It really hit the bottom of my heart. We lost a fellow pilot to a horrible crash. I think that not seeing the crash should be though of as a blessing. That fireball will always be with me. David P.S. At least the pilot died doing something that he loved. I wish that we could all go that way! -- David C. Conly | Flying. One part aptitude, one | part altitude, and two parts conly@bvsd.k12.co.us | attitude. http://bvsd.k12.co.us/~conly | FLYING MAGAZINE From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:02 From: pmchugh@mail.hq.faa.gov Subject: Re: Crash survivability and seat position References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Statistics suggest that there is no "safest" place to sit for crash survivability...however, many of us, in the cabin safety business, like to sit over the wings. Generally a seat in the middle, near the aisle gives you good access to several over wing exits and a shot at the aisle for the other doors as well. The fuselage is stronger at the wing and so may provide some additional protection...on the other hand...there's lots of fuel there as well, and the exits are probably smaller. 'Nother point...there are so few air carrier accidents that statistics are unreliable for the purpose to which the above puts them... Passengers who survive are most often those who are familiar with their suroundings, prepared for the evacuation, and not subjected to significant trauma (blunt force) during the crash sequence. Paying attention to the safety briefings, knowing about safety equipment, and being prepared to take action when necessary are the key ingredients for survival....IMHO! From kls Tue Jun 10 00:35:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jun 97 00:35:02 From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: Debonair: 2nd MD-95 customer? References: <5n6qcb$dot$27@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frontier Internet Services On 05 Jun 1997 12:43:49 -0400, niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) wrote: >Someone on the uk spotters list has mentioned some financial >news that Debonair (London Luton, UK) is seeking funding to purchase >up to 10 MD-95s. Anyone have more news? Debonair has been looking at MD-83s to replace the unreliable 146-200s leased from US Airways. 2G has no money at all and is racking up losses -- not an attractive prospect for investors. One problem is that whilst fares are low, costs are not. Another is that the Spanish routes are fuel-burning exercises, though the German routes do better due to the fact that higher fares can be charged for the latter market. -- Roger Chung-Wee Publisher of Caribbean Aviation Newsletter From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:36 From: "Dennis L. Murphy" Subject: Re: Convair 990's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. Peter & James Liddell wrote: > There are huge numbers of ex TWA 880s at Mojave, and > there's the cickey international 990 in tuscon as well as several > ex Spantax 990s at Palorma, in the Ballerics, and a 880 with no > amrking at some runway in the western desert. (It's somewhere > north of Albequerque) The aircraft that looks like a Convair 880 that is located in the Albuquerque, NM area is not a Convair 880. It looks like one, but it isn't! It is a prototype Douglas aircraft that never made it into production. I don't remember all of the details on it, but it wasn't as large as the 880's, but it had a very similar design. Dennis Murphy dlmurphy@neosoft.com From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:36 From: wirbelw@aol.com (WirbelW) Subject: Re: Convair 990's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I will never forget one of my first jet airliner flights, which took place on one of Varig's 990 ?"Coronado's"?--what a pleasant experience; you felt as if you were on a space ship more than an airliner, what with those streamlined upper wing shock bodies/fuel tanks and the awesome acceleration and speed. We cruised in air conditioned comfort out over the turqoise waters of the Bahamas and on down toward the northern coast of South America as we munched on prosciutto and melon and I marveled at the musicality and beauty of the Brasilian-Portuguese language....aaahhhh 1968 it was... Sorry; don't know the whereabouts of any retired Coronados, but thanks for triggering the memories! From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:37 From: "biker" Subject: Dornier 328 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Has anyone informations on performance of the Dornier 328 .... I'm also seeking desperately a link to an improbable Dornier site. Thanks to all From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:37 From: Stuart Feigin Subject: Re: The Threat of Halon References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Corp. Reply-To: sfeigin@us.oracle.com jfmezei wrote: > Considering the lifetime of an aircraft, it would be interesting to see > if the aircraft manufacturers are assuming a sufficient 30 year supply > of Halon and designing fire suppression solely for Halon, or if they are > designing it in such a way that it could be switched to an alternative > product which may require a larger tank or different nozzles etc. Those of us in the data processing business who have Halon-protected computer rooms are eager to sell our Halon if and when the price is right. It will pay for the conversion of a lot of buildings to modern, ozone-safe systems. That is an enormous reservoir of Halon for years to come. I tried desperately to avoid putting in a large Halon system in 1989, knowing that it was about to be illegal, but the local building authorities demanded it. We must have about $50-75,000 invested in the gas in just one of our data centers. I think the aviation industry will run out of Halon equipped aircraft before we run out of Halon. Presuming there is no fire, I think the stuff is indestructible. -- Stuart Feigin Oracle Corp. Truckee, CA USA Nothing I say represents the revealed wisdom of Oracle Corporation. Larry does that. From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:37 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Airbus 340-8000 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com What happened to the A340-8000? I know of only two customers which ordered the -8000, this was Air Canada and the Sultan of Brunei. I think that Air Canada is no more interested in this bird. Did Airbus react and stop offering the -8000 or is it still on the market ? I would appreciate any input ----------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@hotmail.com ----> Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage <---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:37 From: mba340@club-internet.fr Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr "jla" wrote: >C. Marin Faure wrote in article >... >> >> > In article , >> > Roger Chung-Wee wrote: >> > >I hear that Airbus will be offering a higher gross weight version of >> > >the A330-300 to provide more competition for the 777-200IGW. >> >> If the A330 wants to compete with the 777 it's going to need a new wing. >> Increasing the gross weight alone isn't going to do it. The A330 does not compete with the 777 but with 767. The A340 does. I never heard about an IGW version but only a shorter version (-200). From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:37 From: Antoin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dalt=FAn?= Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 00:34 10/06/97, H Andrew Chuang wrote: > >Yes, a new wing for the A340-500, but no new wing for the A330 HGW. >For the A330 to get to the range of a B777-200IGW, it will also need >a 90,000lb-thrust engine. Four classes of engine for the A330/340 >family... I don't think so! All along, Airbus argued that airlines want >the four-engine configuration for the long-haul aircraft. I doubt Airbus >will launch an ultra-long-range twin any time soon. Yes, Airbus have said all along that the airlines want a four-engine configuration. But not all of the airlines have agreed. Has A330 development been delayed by this Airbus perception and have they lost sales as a result? I fear they may. Antoin Daltun From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:37 From: "jla" Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The advantages of the 777 vs A340/330 are glaring. Airbus cannot just add centerline gear. This has already been stated and acknowledged. The 777 was designed with the larger, heavier gear, even at the cost of the add'l weight and price, to allow for larger and heavier versions of the craft. The Airbus products, however, will need to redesign the gear to support the additional weight...a great and expensive $$$ undertaking. -- jla From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:38 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: Update to N801VV former Valujet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Hey out there a while ago I posted a message asking how many MD80's Valujet had. Well some of you were wondering about the one that I worked on at my companys repair station. Well N801VV is no longer,it is now Z3-ARB flying for a company called Avioimpex. Does anybody know anything about this company or at least where they fly Thanks David From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:38 From: Eric <*Eric@Euronet.be*> Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: <5j8d0h$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: Lufthansa BRU Reply-To: *Eric@Euronet.be* Gregory Glockner wrote: > But besides routes between their big hubs, does FedEx really have a > use for a super-jumbo? At best, this represents maybe 10 A/C. Given > the development costs, it might be cheaper to run double runs of > current planes (principally MD-11's). It was never my intention to imply FedEx was going to buy hundreds of A3XX. I actually think 10 is what they have in mind. Sometimes, the cheapest solution is not the best for FedEx. In Europe, they are at a disadvantage vis-=E0-vis their competitors because the last pick-up is much earlier at FedEx than with other companies (in Belgium, for instance : 3 pm for FedEx, 6 pm for UPS and TNT, 7 pm for DHL). The reason is that FedEx is treating Europe just like a big US city, where next day by 10:30 to "more of the USA" must be available, which means their planes must leave the Paris gateway around 7 pm to be on time in Memphis. Traffic is heavy on the Atlantic routes, even at that time, so if FedEx can operate only a single aircraft and enjoy a late departure, thus offer later cut-out times, I think they will. Beside, FedEx won't have to bear development costs, they will just pay the aircraft's price like any other customer. They may even get a discount if they're launch customers. In the long run, one recent plane with higher capacity is cheaper to operate than 2 recent planes with half the capacity. Being a launch customer doesn't entail buying a lot of aicraft either. French regional airline Brit Air is launch customer for the 70 seat streched version of the Canadair RJ, the RJ-700, with an order for... 4 aircraft. From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:38 From: Mihir Pramod Shah Subject: Re: American 737-200s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech Brian Maddison wrote: > > They never owned the 200s, altho I do believe one or two were leased for > a short time. Most of the American-owned 200s (N-numbers with AC suffix) > went to the Kansas City incarnation of Braniff and have since wound up > with various operators, including Viscount. I don't know where the leased > ones (GB suffix) went and I can't find them in any current US fleet. I've never heard of Viscount. Are you possible thinking of Vanguard, which does use 737-200's and is based in Kansas City? Just wanted to make sure... Mihir ________________________________________________ Mihir P. Shah Email: mishah@vt.edu 244 Old Cedarfield Drive WWW: (coming soon) Blacksburg, VA 24060 Phone: (540) 961-7869 From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:38 From: jimcam@arctic.ca Subject: Re: American 737-200s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NTnet News Server >Hey there can anyone out there tell me what ever happen to the >737-200's that American inherited from AirCal and retired. The two 737-200's which had Wein Air Alaska registrations were sold to Robert Engle who leases them to NWT air. NWT air is an Air Canada connector. This was way back in 1988 and 89. Jim Cameron Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Canada Net-Tamer V 1.08.1 - Test Drive From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:38 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Dimitrios Tombros wrote: > Are there any HS Tridents still flying (airliner or military)? After checking http://www.totavia.com/hawkeye/hs121.html I would say that there are no more Tridents flying around. > Why did this aircraft which was so similar to B727 have so little success? >Was it some kind of construction or operational problem or just bad > marketing? Both, the size of the plane did not fit the needs and fuel cosumption and maintenance was very expensive compared to other birds. Bad marketing did the rest. ----------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@hotmail.com ----> Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage <---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:38 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Dimitrios Tombros wrote: > > Are there any HS Tridents still flying (airliner or military)? Why did > this aircraft which was so similar to B727 have so little success? Was > it some kind of construction or operational problem or just bad > marketing? Two words: Hideously underpowered. They were so under-powered that the final Tridents built actually had 4 engines- a small "booster" engine was added in a pod at the base of the tail. Normal takeoff/climb performance was not great, and I'm sure that hot/high performance was nonexistant. The 727, in contrast, was considered a real hot-rod for its day, not only because it had plenty of power but because of its flap system. By modern standards, the 727 is no longer a hot-rod (the 757 set a new standard in that area...) but its not a slouch either. Just look at the other thread on cruise speeds, for example. -- 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 Jun 16 21:35:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:38 From: Iain Stuart Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: What In article , Dimitrios Tombros writes >Are there any HS Tridents still flying (airliner or military)? Why did >this aircraft which was so similar to B727 have so little success? Was >it some kind of construction or operational problem or just bad >marketing? Last I heard, there were a couple still flying in China. Basically, the aircraft was underpowered, and that restricted routes and payload. The Spey engines couldn't be upthrusted, and various methods were used to squeeze extra thrust (water ingestion I think, and an auxiliary boost engine, the RB162. The 162 was a odd engine, but that's another story.) With this and against Boeing muscle, HS hadn't a chance really. ----------- Iain Stuart Poet, Philosopher, Sportsman, Engineer, Stud, Soul-Brother, Spy, Prime Minister, Liar and Inventor of the Granite Sousaphone From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:38 From: Mihir Pramod Shah Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech Dimitrios Tombros wrote: > > Are there any HS Tridents still flying (airliner or military)? Why did > this aircraft which was so similar to B727 have so little success? Was > it some kind of construction or operational problem or just bad > marketing? As was the case with many British-built airliners, the Trident was pretty much custom-built for British European Airways (BEA, which later merged with BOAC to become British Airways). Thus, since the aircraft was basically built exclusively to BEA's specifications and needs, other airlines did not find the Trident attractive if their needs were siginificantly different. The Vickers VC-10 seemed to suffer the same problem, although they did fly with a few other carriers like East African Airways (but of course, they too were established by the British in 1946). The BAC-111 did have a little more success, with operators such as American and Allegheny (later US Air(ways)). Beyond that, there may be other technical and operational problems with the Trident that I am unaware of...Hopefully someone out there can add to this topic... Mihir ________________________________________________ Mihir P. Shah Email: mishah@vt.edu 244 Old Cedarfield Drive WWW: (coming soon) Blacksburg, VA 24060 Phone: (540) 961-7869 From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:38 From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nobody but me In article , tombros@ifi.unizh.ch (Dimitrios Tombros) wrote: >Are there any HS Tridents still flying (airliner or military)? Why did >this aircraft which was so similar to B727 have so little success? Was >it some kind of construction or operational problem or just bad >marketing? Listening too much to one customer may have had something to do with it. BEA had alot of design input in the aircraft specifying a plane to carry about 100 passengers over relatively short distances. This resulted in the RR Spey engine being used, and the aircraft loosing alot of growth potential. So while DH had a 100 seater with 3 engines (Trident 1), Boeing came in with the 727-100 at up to 130 seats and bigger engines. The 727 grew into the -200 (up to 189 seats) while the Trident went through the 1E (upto 140 seats), 2E (149 seats) and the 4 engined Trident 3 (up to 180 seats). The fourth engine was a Take-off boost engine to compensate for the lack of trust from the Speys. Now that's effecient, carrying around an engine that is only used on Take-off. Marketing was also told not to market the plane overseas until BEA's specification was completly nailed down. So while BEA may have been happy with the plane, not too many other airlines had BEA's particular requirements in mind. Andy Muir From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:39 From: Antoin Daltun Subject: Re: HS Trident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 00:34 10/06/97, Dimitrios Tombros wrote: >Are there any HS Tridents still flying (airliner or military)? Why did >this aircraft which was so similar to B727 have so little success? Was >it some kind of construction or operational problem or just bad >marketing? The Trident suffered from two basic problems: 1) It was designed to a narrow BEA (now BA) specification which gave it a short range and a requirement for long runways. The B727 was designed to meet a much wider range of requirements for US airlines, including difficult airports, such as LGA and Denver, and therefore for world markets. This meant high production, lower price and funds available to improve the capability of the aircraft further, e.g. B727-200, B727-200 Advanced 2) It used the Rolls-Royce Spey engine which was much inferior to the P&W JT8D in every respect, including reliability, maintenance cost and development potential. In the European environment, the real competitor to the Trident was the DC-9 and later the B737, both of which needed only two engines and two pilots to do much the same work. Additionally, the B727 had the Boeing 707 reputation to support it. No one needed to go to Hawker Siddeley who had much less reputation for airliner support. Finally, the B727 had the same fuselage cross-section as the B707 while the Trident was several inches narrower. This also made a B727QC (Quick Change passenger to/from all-cargo configuration) possible with an ability to carry the same main deck cargo containers as the B707 freighter or combi, and therefore offer quick connections. Interestingly, the QC concept dropped out of fashion (cabin damage, cost of conversion, overlap between times when the aircraft was needed for passengers and for cargo) quite soon, but it has been revived recently for the B727 in the US and for the B737-300 in Europe (l'Aeropostale operations for Air France and Air France Europe, and Falcon Aviation in Sweden for SAS, at least for a while). Reports on whether the convertible works well nowadays would be of interest. Regards Antoin Daltun From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:39 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: HS Trident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Are there any HS Tridents still flying (airliner or military)? Why did >this aircraft which was so similar to B727 have so little success? Was >it some kind of construction or operational problem or just bad >marketing? There are no airworthy Tridents left. The last passenger service was in China 1991, and a few freighters soldiered on in Zaire for a couple more years. The reasons why the Trident was a commercial 'failure' are a matter of opinion. FWIW, here is mine... The Trident was designed primarily for one customer, British European Airways (BEA), and although the design was essentially complete by 1957 BEA could not decide how big an airplane they wanted. By the time of the first flight in January 1962 the Trident was a 97-seater with a range of around 1000 nm. These years of dithering allowed Boeing to catch up and first 727 flew only 1 year later. In the early stages Boeing and DeHavilland actively discussed a joint venture, and it may just be a coincidence that the 727 ended up with a very similar configuration, or it may not. The timing was not quite right for DeH in trying to get pre-production orders in the years 1957 to say 1961. Most major airlines especially in the US still had relatively young propliners DC-6s, DC-7s, and various Constellations for shorter routes, were in the process of introducing early 707s and DC-8s on longer services, and were understandably wary about buying expensive short-haul jets. (American and Braniff did buy BAC 111 jets but only in small numbers.) I don't believe there were any major operational problems with Tridents although the early models turned out to have insufficient range for some BEA routes (LHR-ATH). Particularly ironic since it was BEA who had insisted on the scaled-down version. They were a bit under-powered and later versions actually had a fourth booster engine, as we discussed in an earlier post. That the 727 went on to huge success and the Trident is little more than a footnote is due mainly to the private enterprise approach of Boeing versus the political interference from BEA and the UK government which doomed the Trident (and also the Vickers VC10 for that matter). ................................................................ Brian Maddison From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:39 From: mikeh@zeta.org.au (Michael Hore) Subject: Re: B737 flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kralizec Internet, http://www.zeta.org.au/ "duboille" writes: >Who can explain me exactly the reason of the 20.000 ft limitation for flaps >extension on B737 series.Many thanks in advance. I don't have the exact information, but I can make a (hopefully) informed guess, based on a bit of basic aerodynamics. As you go higher, your stall speed increases in terms of TAS (true airspeed) (it would stay constant in terms of IAS). But also, as you go higher, the speed of sound *decreases*, so your various Mach limits will also come down in terms of TAS. This means that the higher you get, the narrower the safe speed range in which you can fly. The exact numbers will depend on aircraft type, weight, etc. Now the 737 has a rather low Mach number cruise (.74, I saw in another post). Thus I would guess that above 20,000 ft, if you're flying a safe margin above the stall, your margin below your Mach limits isn't all that much. Now extending the flaps would compromise the whole situation - the flaps aren't designed to handle compressibility (Mach number) effects, so you'd be violating the basic assumptions under which they're designed, and thus your structural integrity. That's my guess, anyhow. Cheers, Mike. ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Hore mikeh@zeta.org.au ---------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:39 From: graham bowden Subject: Re: Engine start process questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Rich Nute wrote: > A jet engine is started by: > > 1. Spin the turbine up to some rpm. > > How many rpm? Depends on the engine. Gas turbine tacho's are usually in % RPM ie engine is at 100% or 50% or whatever. A CFM56 as on a B737-300 will spin to aprroximately 25% on the starter . > The spin is either by an electric motor (for small > engines) or compressed air (for larger engines). > > Does the electric motor also serve as the generator? Depends on the manufacturer. As I recall DHC-6 Twin Otters had a starter/generator and they wouldn't be the only ones thus fitted. > What is the approximate gear ratio between the > electric motor and the turbine? Don't know > How is the spin air injected into the engine? Bleed air from the aircraft's APU (auxiliary power unit) or ground air supply drives a turbine driven starter usually on the gearbox and this turns the motor. Gearbox to motor gear ratio (very roughly) 8 to7 ie gearbox spins faster than engine. > 2. Inject fuel. > > How is this done? Electric boost pumps in the tanks deliver fuel to engine driven pumps which in turn deliver the fuel to an FCU (Fuel Control Unit) or MEC (Main Engine Control) which then delivers programmed amounts of fuel to the engine's fuel injectors. > 3. Ignite fuel. > > How is this done? By ignitors, essentially very large spark plugs. Once the engine is running the ignitors can (and usually are) switched off as gas turbines have a continuous and self sustaining combustion process. Flight through rain though, often calls for the ignition to be on. > In the cockpit, what are the engine start controls, > and what are the pilots' jobs during engine start? > Doesn't one pilot keep a hand on the engine fire > extinguisher? Start controls generally are a start selector switch and start lever (fuel cut-off lever if you like). The crew would perform a fire warning test prior to start then, if a turbine starter is fitted they'e check pneumatic pressure, make sure the fuel boost pumps are on, anti-collision lights on, start clearance then select the start switch for the engine being started. The N2 tacho is observed for engine rotation, oil pressure should be seen rising. When the engine reaches its light off speed the start lever is raised. This turns the fuel and ignition on. Then the fuel flow and EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) are monitored. As the engine accelerates the starter is still engaged and this also is monitored to ensure it drops out when it should. If it doesn't the starter can spin to destruction. With the engine accelerating on its own after starter cut out the N2, N1, EGT and Fuel low are continually monitored until the engine stabilises at ground idle. N1 and N2 by the way, are tachos reading %RPM for the Fan & low pressure compressor (N1) and High pressure compressor (N2) which can and do spin at different RPMs. > Thanks, > Richard Nute > San Diego Hope that satisfies you Richard Graham Bowden From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:39 From: Ron Adams Subject: Re: Engine start process questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Random Access Inc. +1 (800) 910-1190 Reply-To: ronadams@randomc.com Rich Nute wrote: > A jet engine is started by: > > 1. Spin the turbine up to some rpm. > > How many rpm? It depends on the engine, but generally something above 20 percent N2. BTW, exact RPMs aren't shown, unlike reciprocating engines. It's shown as a percentage of max RPM. The early jets had RPM but since it is typically over 10,000, percentage is much more reasonable. > The spin is either by an electric motor (for small > engines) or compressed air (for larger engines). > > Does the electric motor also serve as the generator? Not usually. > What is the approximate gear ratio between the > electric motor and the turbine? Sorry, you have me there. > How is the spin air injected into the engine? It's not. It goes to an air-driven starter motor. > 2. Inject fuel. > > How is this done? Through the fuel control unit, something like a fuel injector controller, but more complex. Fuel is then injected into the burner "cans" that are in the "hot section", arranged symetrically around the engine core. These cans are more like sieves, in that they have holes for the air to come in. The can actually holds the flame in place. > 3. Ignite fuel. > > How is this done? Igniters, like spark plugs, located in some of the burner cans. They run until the engine is at the proper idle RPM (usually between 50 & 60 percent). > In the cockpit, what are the engine start controls, > and what are the pilots' jobs during engine start? Depends on the cockpit and how sophisticated it is. For the earlier types, one turns on the ignition switch, holds a start switch while the engine turns up and then at the proper time turns on the fuel control switch. Once the engine reaches the proper RPM, the start switch is released and the ignition switch turned off. In later versions, one pushes the start switch, waits for the proper RPM and turns on the fuel control switch. At the proper RPM, the start switch pops out on its own. > Doesn't one pilot keep a hand on the engine fire > extinguisher? No, on the fuel control switch. The first step in fighting an engine fire is to turn off the fuel control switch. If necessary, the fire extinguishing system is the next step. > Thanks, > Richard Nute > San Diego You're quite welcome. Ron Adams, Atlanta From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:39 From: Robert Kochersberger Subject: Re: Engine start process questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: North Carolina State University Rich Nute wrote: > A jet engine is started by: > --snip-- > > How is this done? > > In the cockpit, what are the engine start controls, > and what are the pilots' jobs during engine start? > Doesn't one pilot keep a hand on the engine fire > extinguisher? I was in the cockpit of a Crossair Jumbolino a couple of months ago during engine start. An overhead rotary switch labeled 1-2-3-4 is adjacent to a button marked "Engine Start." The pilot put the rotary switch at "1" and pressed the start button. When instruments showed proper rpm and temperature, he put the switch in "2" and repeated the process. Very simple procedure, much moreso than on earlier generation transports, I'm sure. From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:39 From: Iain Stuart Subject: Re: Engine start process questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: What In article , Rich Nute writes >A jet engine is started by: > >1. Spin the turbine up to some rpm. > > How many rpm? On RB211's about 25% of max HP speed - About 3,000 rpm The other shafts of a multi-shaft engine are obviously slower. > > How is the spin air injected into the engine? There's an external gearbox fitted with a air starter motor, and generators and pumps. Pressurised air is fed in (from other APU, engines or ground carts) driving the starter, driving the gearbox, a shaft into the core of the engine, and driving the HP system. During the start, the starter disengages once the ngine is self-sustaining. Once running above idle, the HP system drives the gearbox, providing electrical and hydraulic power to the aircraft. >2. Inject fuel. > How is this done? Thru' fuel injectors feeding fuel directly into the combustion chamber. >3. Ignite fuel. > How is this done? Ignitor plugs ( big spark plugs ) but once started, they're not required and the combustor is self sustaining. (You can switch on continuous ignition if you have a nervous pilot. ;-) ) >In the cockpit, what are the engine start controls, >and what are the pilots' jobs during engine start? With modern aircraft systems, press the autostart button, and wander off for a few mins while the electronics take care of everything. >Doesn't one pilot keep a hand on the engine fire extinguisher? Only if he's a nervous wuss ;-) >Thanks, >Richard Nute Welcome ! Big-Iain ps. Rolls-Royce's UK Homepage has a "How A Jet Engine Works" section. -- Iain Stuart Anybody know how to stop pandas breeding ? Got a pair as a Christmas present last year, and all they do is breed and eat. "At it" like rabbits they are, horny little buggers. The police are getting suspicious about my sales of stuffed pandas, and the market for live pandas is almost saturated ! From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:40 From: dahler@gte.net (Chris Dahler) Subject: Re: Engine start process questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GTE Intelligent Network Services, GTE INS In article , richn@sdd.hp.com says... >A jet engine is started by: > >1. Spin the turbine up to some rpm. > > How many rpm? Generally, the RPM is given as a percent rather than a total number. This is far easier than trying to quickly comprehend some number like "10450 RPM"; conceptually, it is easier to understand "20%". The turbines on most airliners are spun to anywhere from 20 to 25 percent before fuel injection. > The spin is either by an electric motor (for small > engines) or compressed air (for larger engines). > > Does the electric motor also serve as the generator? > What is the approximate gear ratio between the > electric motor and the turbine? It depends. On most corporate jets with engines that are started electrically, the starter is also the generator. There are no airliner jet engines that are started electrically due to the excessive electrical loads that would be required to spin such relatively large turbines. The APU on most airliners is a small turbine which is started electrically from battery power, and the starter for these APUs generally is not the APU generator. > How is the spin air injected into the engine? A valve opens which allows compressed air from either the APU or an external air source to blow onto a small turbine wheel, which in turn drives the shaft of the engine. >2. Inject fuel. > > How is this done? A valve opens which allows fuel under pressure from boost pumps located in the fuel tanks to be sprayed through injector nozzles into the burner cans, where it mixes with the compressed air from the front of the engine and provides a continuous combustion. >3. Ignite fuel. > > How is this done? There are igniters located around the circumference of the burner cans which fire just like the spark plugs in a car's engine. This provides the initial ignition to the fuel/air mixture. Once the fire is started, it will keep burning as long as fuel and air are continuously supplied, so the igniters are only used to get the combustion started or as a backup safety measure when flying in rain. >In the cockpit, what are the engine start controls, >and what are the pilots' jobs during engine start? It varies from one airline to another, but generally the copilot will open the start valve allowing the air into the starter, and the captain will raise the start lever or switch allowing fuel into the engine. >Doesn't one pilot keep a hand on the engine fire >extinguisher? No, but the controls are located centrally for quick access should a problem occur. Chris Dahler dahler@gte.net From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:40 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Engine start process questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Rich Nute wrote: > A jet engine is started by: > > 1. Spin the turbine up to some rpm. > > How many rpm? It varies from engine type to type but roughly anywhere from 15-25% N2. I always go to MAX Motor RPM ( the highest that the APU/GRND AIR) will spin it. MAX Motor depends on the health of your APU or Grnd air source. > The spin is either by an electric motor (for small > engines) or compressed air (for larger engines). > > Does the electric motor also serve as the generator? > What is the approximate gear ratio between the > electric motor and the turbine? On some early and or smaller engines it does. I have no idea what the gear ratio is. > How is the spin air injected into the engine? It isn't. The air used to start is usually at around 40psi. It is ducted through a "starter control valve" to a small pneumatic turbine monted on the engine gear box. This turns the gearbox, which in turns drives the high pressure spool (N2 or N3 on Rolls Royce RB211) of the engine the low pressure spoolstarts turning on its own due to the airflow being generated by the N2. > 2. Inject fuel. > > How is this done? When the engine reaches max motor speed the pilot opens a valve in the fuel control of the engine by advancing the fuel shut off lever usually located on the pedestal just behind the throttle or moving a switch on the newer types which does the same thing. > 3. Ignite fuel. > > How is this done? Each engine has two (usually) igniters located in the burner cans. These are similar to the spark plugs in your car but much more powerful. Each aircraft type is a little different, and differences exist on similiar type depending on customer options. Here are the ones I am familiar with: DC9/MD88 - Select "A", "B", or "BOTH" ignitors on the overhead panel via a rotary switch. This arms the ignition switch. Press down and hold a guarded "Start" switch on the overhead this opens the starter control valve and turns on the ignition. At max motor advance the fuel lever to on. Continue to hold the starter switch to help accelerate the engine and keep the ignition going untill 35% N2, while monitoring the EGT, N1, Fuel Flow. At 35% N2 release the starter switch and monitor gauges untill the engine stabilizes at idle. L1011 - Select "A", "B", or BOTH on the overhead, depress the Start button on the overhead and make sure the greenlight indicating the start valve has opened. Allow engine to spool up to 18% N3, make sure the N2 is turning (Second Officers panel), make sure N1 is turning, then advance the fuel switch, watch EGT and N3 as the engine accelerates. At 45% N3 the start valve green light should go out indicating the starter has shut off, and at 50% the button should release indicating that ignition is off. Monitor gauges to ensure a stabilized idle. 757/767 - Turn the start/ign control for the engine you want to start to the "GND START" position, at max motor make sure the N1 is turning, and turn on the fuel, monitor EGT etc. At 50% N2 the starter switch will pop back to the off position. Make sure the engine stabilizes at idle. On all aircraft you should be sure you have some oil pressure indication before putting fuel to the engine. At idle oil pressure should be within limits. > In the cockpit, what are the engine start controls, > and what are the pilots' jobs during engine start? > Doesn't one pilot keep a hand on the engine fire > extinguisher? No, the fire one would likely encounter during engine start is in the tailpipe. The fire extinguishing system has no effect on tailpipe fires as it discharges into the nacelle. In the event of a tailpipe fire you have two options, one is to shut off fuel and continue to motor the engine to prevent overtemping and blow out the fire, the other is to continue the start and blow out the fire. Tailpipe fires are a pain because you usually have no cockpit indication of the fire and are dependent on the ground crew to notify you. The L1011 has a nasty habit of rolling back at idle, causing the fuel control to dump more fuel in an attempt to accelerate to engine to idle speed. This excess fuel can sometimes start a tailpipe fire. Hot starts are more of a problem, that is when the engine will reach the max start EGT. Then you have to abort the start and motor the engine untill it cools enough to try again. > Thanks, > Richard Nute > San Diego Your welcome, Seth From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:40 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Engine start process questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Whoo Boy, what a set of questions! 1) The engine start RPM is set by the limitations of the engine starter as opposed to the actual engine. Small (electric starting) turbo-props use 15-20% of RPM to get start as opposed to a given number. Since the advent of the turbojet and 'modern' turboprops, engine RPM is given in % rather than actual numbers. Who really needs to remember that the Allison turboprop used in the Lockheed Electra spun at 13,480 RPM at normal power, or that the JT8D-7 N1 spins at 9,580 and N2 at 14500? 2) The air is ducted to the starter motor via the same ductwork that extracts the bleed air from the engine for air conditioning, pressurization, and anti-ice duties. There is a simple valve that opens to allow the air to get to the engine. 3) The fuel is injected into the engine via a fuel cutoff lever or switch in the cockpit, which (in some cases) simultaniously applies ignition. During cruise flight, the engines are like diesels - they don't require spark plugs. During takeoff, climb, landing, and turbulence/rain a low power ignition is left on as a backup. 4) No, the pilots don't have one hand on the fire handle. From starter engagement to fuel turn-on, the pilot has his/her hand on the starter motor switch. After fuel turn-on, the pilot's hand should then stay on the fuel cutoff switch/lever, since any problem after fuel turn-on will most likely be solved by simply removing the fuel from the engine. 5) The last part of the start cycle is the pilots ensuring that the starter has indeed disengaged at the proper engine RPM. If it doesn't, the engine's acceleration could spin the starter motor beyond it's limits, which is listed in the operator's manuals as 'bad'. If the starter hasn't disengaged, as indicated by the pneumatic pressure failing to rise back up, or the electrical load from the starter being indicated, the pilots would shut the engine down to prevent damage to the starter and possible engine damage. There are, of course, several variations on the basic theme - 'hot' starts, 'hung' starts, etc. All these are practices 1-2 times per year in flight simulators to keep the crews up to speed on their non-normal procedures. -jc TheFNG From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:40 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Fuel consumption Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com This question is related to fuel consumption for commercial aircraft. In several books I found that the fuel consumption for a B737-500 (which I take as example) is of 2700 l/h at cruising altitude and at normal cruising speed (908 km/h). I will call this value FCCA. I would like to know the typical values for the following parameters : - Fuel consuption from starting of the engines until reaching of the cruising altitude. This assumes a plane at MTOW, departure 10 minutes after having started the engines, a constant *typical* climbing rate. The value can be in liters or US gallons or l/h or gal/h. This value will be called FCTO. - What time would it take to reach cruising altitude with these parameters. - Fuel consumption from the moment where the aircraft leaves the cruising altitude until it touches ground. This assumes again a constant descend rate, MLW, no reversing of engines and shutdown of the engines 5 minutes after touching ground. This value will be called FCGR. - Can a relationship be made between FCCA, FCTO and FCGR for the B737-500. - Can this be generalized to any aircraft? Regards ----------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@hotmail.com ----> Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage <---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:40 From: Vangal Venkatesh Subject: thrust, fuel consumption Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On a 747-400, how much thrust is developed by each engine during cruise and what is the fuel consumption? Also what's the maximum thrust that each engine can develop during cruise and the fuel consumption at maximum thrust? I am looking for answers to the above, maybe someone can suggest where I should look. Thanks, Vangal V. From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:40 From: mvelure@aol.com (MVelure) Subject: 737-400 specs. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I wonder if anyone out there can post or e-mail the performance specs. for a B-737-400. I can't seem to find them anywhere on the internet, and I don't know any pilots who have any time in the 737. It would be great if I could get the normal climb speed, cruise speed, descent speed, as well as fuel consumption (GPH) and max. range. Thanks in advance. Matt Velure MVelure@aol.com From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:40 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: New Tri-Jets Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa As several people have pointed out, the new large turbofans used on the Boeing 777 and Airbus A330 would allow the construction of a three engine airliner with as much thrust as present B747s. From what I read, three large engines cost less to operate and maintain than four smaller engines of the same total thrust. Would a 747 sized tri-jet in fact cost less to operate, or would the savings from the engines be offset by other factors such as a heavier wing structure to carry the weight of one engine at the center of the span? Has either McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, or Airbus looked at such a plane? From artists' conceptions, it looked like the proposed MD-12 did not use the larger engines. Would airlines or air cargo haulers find such a plane attractive? Presuming there was a market for it, could a large tri-jet be derived from the Boeing 777 by extending the fuselage forward enough to balance the weight of the third engine and increasing the size of the vertical tail to compensate for the increased fuselage area forward? Of course, this would be in addition to the changes needed for the increased weight and payload allowed by the third engine. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:40 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: New Tri-Jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > Presuming there was a market for it, could a large tri-jet be derived >from the Boeing 777 by extending the fuselage forward enough to balance >the weight of the third engine and increasing the size of the vertical >tail to compensate for the increased fuselage area forward? Of course, >this would be in addition to the changes needed for the increased weight >and payload allowed by the third engine. A much bigger problem is the additional fuselage structure required to support both the weight of the center engine and the transferrence of the thrust it generates to the rest of the airframe. Aft-mounted engines also pose safety problems in that they place concentrations of very high kinetic energy close to critical systems. (Witness UA 232, the DC-10 which almost landed at Sioux City.) Yet another problem where exactly you put the engine. An S-duct, as on a Trident, 727, or L-1011, has aerodynamic and structural advan- tages, but also poses length constraints which would be especially challenging for an engine as large as those on a 777. The DC-10-style straight-duct doesn't have the length constraint, but leads to greater structural weight, plus the greater height has negative implications for maintenance. There have been several proposals for a split-duct (747 tri-jet, early DC-10 study) but none have been built that I'm aware of. I'd guess their problems would be similar to the S-duct. It's certainly possible -- Boeing had several studies of tri-jet 747 variants, while Lockeed and Douglas went the other way with TwinStar and DC-10 Twin derivatives, respectively -- but it's non-trivial. I doubt Boeing would do it as long as they can sell 747s, and I don't see Airbus having much interest in such a project either. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jun 16 21:35:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Jun 97 21:35:41 From: dave lawson Subject: Re: Logo Technology References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dave Lawson Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > > I recently saw the new Air Canada livery. They have replaced their > simple single color maple leaf with a more realistic shaded version. I > have seen other examples of logos and livery becoming more complex. Have > their been advances in painting technology that have made this possible? This is done using a decal made by 3M. I think they call it Scotchcal. It is neat stuff. It gets used for a number of applications. I think they also use it on USAir for their striping. Dave From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:30 From: Tilman Sporkert Subject: Re: BA introduced design fault (feature?) (Was: B767 ... ) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333 Pete Mellor wrote: > Therefore, let me rephrase my earlier query: Why on earth would > BA choose to have no footrests on one column of seats, i.e., the > middle column D in the centre block in 2-3-2 two-aisle layout? I have never been on an airplane that had footrests at all. I guess you are talking about that metal bar that is usually found underneath your seat? I always thought this is there to stop the carry-on lugguage of the person behind you from moving around the airplane. I.e. this "bar" actually curves around at the sides of the seat, towards the back, to form a cage that holds your carry-on items in place. -- tilman@activesw.com Tilman Sporkert, Active Software, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:31 From: Peter Coe Subject: Re: BA introduced design fault (feature?) (Was: B767 ... ) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Speaking for myself.org. Reply-To: Peter Coe Pete Mellor writes: >As several people have pointed out, the carrier is responsible for >the seating plan. (I sort of knew this, but wasn't thinking! :-) >Therefore, let me rephrase my earlier query: Why on earth would >BA choose to have no footrests on one column of seats, i.e., the >middle column D in the centre block in 2-3-2 two-aisle layout? Just a guess, but maybe it is a hold over from that crazy BA idea, the switchable business/economy seat. This was a 3 seater that could be changed to a 2 seater by switching of a lever. Not very satisfactory as either - the middle person of a 3 seater had a split cushion in the middle of the back, and a 2 seater had a split at the shoulder. Presumably the foot rest disn't matter because the business passenger got one anyway, and the economy passenger shouldn't have one at all, so the center seat wasn't equipped. Also looking at the last two BA timetables, I see that they have changed the middle 767 cabin from a mix of business and economy, to be only economy. First class has gone altogether. Maybe you caught a plane mid switch. From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:31 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: B767 design fault (feature?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On Sun Jun 15 00:39:24 1997, Chris Flynn wrote: >>Returning with me on a BA B767 to LHR from a conference in Berlin, >>my girl-friend was a bit miffed to discover that her seat had no >>foot-rest. (She is somewhat vertically challenged, and finds that >>having her feet dangling several inches from the floor does >>little to add to the comfort of flying.) >>Thinking she had a defective seat, I did a quick check. All the >>middle seats in the centre block were minus foot-rest. All other >>seats had one. (We're talking economy class here!) >>Can anyone shed any light on this bizarre design decision? > >Our aircraft have variable Club config. ^^^ Aha! Am I talking to someone from BA? >If there are lots of Club pax >the cabin will be extended as far as possible. Club config doesn't use >the middle seat so no footrest. >In your case, Club was smaller than max. so you got to sit in a Club >seat, even though you were in the economy section. Actually, my girl-friend got to sit in the Club seat. (She can be remarkably persuasive, despite her lack of inches! :-) >Hope that makes sense. Yes, it does. Thanks. I will explain to my girl-friend that her basic problem is that she does not conform to the BA regulation which states that no economy passenger is allowed to be shorter than average! Her options are therefore either to grow a bit, or find herself toy-boy who is rich enough to pay for Club class! :-) Seriously, it seems a bit daft to restrict foot-rests (and very ordinary foot-rests at that) to Club class, particularly since the lack of one could cause serious discomfort to someone whose legs are not long enough to reach the floor. Could you pass the message back, or suggest to me the right department of BA with whom to have a word? Thanks. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:31 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear 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 jb7@usa.net "jla" writes: >The advantages of the 777 vs A340/330 are glaring. Airbus cannot just add >centerline gear. This has already been stated and acknowledged. The 777 >was designed with the larger, heavier gear, even at the cost of the add'l >weight and price, to allow for larger and heavier versions of the craft. >The Airbus products, however, will need to redesign the gear to support the >additional weight...a great and expensive $$$ undertaking. >-- The wing is the big 777 advantage, not the gear. If you have more detailed info why `Airbus cannot just add centerline gear' it would help your case if you would state why. The only thing that `has already been stated and acknowledged' here is that the -wing- is the key issue. You have not outlined why the greater carrying capacity of the A340 gear cannot be added to the A330. -- -Niels From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:31 From: Christopher Davis Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dirac Angestun Gesept jla> == jla jla> The advantages of the 777 vs A340/330 are glaring. Airbus cannot jla> just add centerline gear. [...] The 777 was designed with the jla> larger, heavier gear, even at the cost of the add'l weight and jla> price, to allow for larger and heavier versions of the craft. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes." One advantage that the DC-10 held over the Tristar in the "twin-aisle trijet" competition was its growth ability; the fact that a centerline gear could be added to the DC-10 to allow for higher MGTOW made it feasible to have longer-range versions of the plane that didn't require shortening the fuselage (as with the L-1011-500). This meant that the DC-10 "won" the competition (a Pyrrhic victory), while Lockheed wound up leaving the commercial airline market (again); it's somewhat ironic that Airbus may have made a similar mistake... -- Christopher Davis Geographic locations in DNS! From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:32 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 16 Jun 97 21:35:37 , "jla" caused to appear as if it was written: >The advantages of the 777 vs A340/330 are glaring. Airbus cannot just add >centerline gear. This has already been stated and acknowledged. The 777 >was designed with the larger, heavier gear, even at the cost of the add'l >weight and price, to allow for larger and heavier versions of the craft. >The Airbus products, however, will need to redesign the gear to support the >additional weight...a great and expensive $$$ undertaking. Hang on! The the A330-200 has a reinforced gear compared to the A330-300, and the A340 has a different twin-wheel center main gear. I don't see what this poster is trying to say... A lot of people seem to be running around saying Airbus needs to redesign this or that part of the A330/A340 family in order to achieve specific goals. But so what? Boeing redesigned the 747's wing for the -400, and modified the fuse for the -300, and it looks like they're adding 3.96m to the wings of the 777-200 for the -200X and increasing its MTOW to 333Tonnes. But the 777-200X seems to have hit a bit of a brick wall in that the engine manufacturers apparently aren't willing to commit to the effort to deliver power plants in excess of 454kN (102,000lb). Every product has growth "jumps", and the 777 is not immume, anymore than the A330 is. The latter was in service first, and perhaps Airbus considered the time-to-service-introduction more important than building growth into various parts of the initial design. As Boeing, Douglas and Airbus have all shown, growth CAN be built into a design AFTER it enters service... Malc. From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:32 From: stdhuff1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (dg huffer) Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ciral's house of huffer In article , Eric <*Eric@Euronet.be*> wrote: >In the long run, one recent plane >with higher capacity is cheaper to operate than 2 recent planes with >half the capacity. Not necessarily for FedEx. Out of ORD we're sending 2 A300's, a 727-100, and a 727-200 to Memphis. We also send a 727-100 and a 727-200 to Indianapolis. While the direct operation costs of fewer planes with larger capacity would probably be cheaper. Logistical factors, such as actually loading/unloading the planes, sorting the freight, and dependability, weigh heavily. If you just have to sort out ULDs, I can see a super jumbo making sense (5-10 years down the road) between hubs such as Memphis, Subic Bay, or CDG. -- dg huffer From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:32 From: jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam]> Subject: Re: Why a new super-jumbo isn't going to be built anytime soon. References: <5j8d0h$lsc@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam] There have been questions about a super jumbo having difficulty operating at airports because of its wingspan. (gates space etc). Is it conceivable that instead of having 2 huge wings, an aircraft would have 4 medium wings ? Either 2 fore, 2 aft, or like on the old planes, wings below fuselage and wings directly above, above fuselage ? In the 2 fore and 2 aft scenario, perhaps the back wings could be above fuselage, and fore wings below with each wing equipped with one engine. Is this absurd, or is this something the airframe manufacturers would have looked at ? If dismissed, why ? From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:32 From: Matthew Kranz Subject: Re: B737 flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprint Internet Passport Reply-To: kranz@sprintmail.com "duboille" writes: >Who can explain me exactly the reason of the 20.000 ft limitation for flaps >extension on B737 series.Many thanks in advance. Well, during my 727 training (which also carries a limit of 20,000' for flap extension), we were taught that the limit exists because, during Boeing's flight testing, the test pilots never extended the flaps while above 20,000'. Since extending them above that altitude would be venturing into uncharted waters, the limitation was imposed. Just my $0.02. --Matt Kranz 727 F/E From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:32 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: HS Trident 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 adaltun@tinet.ie "Antoin Daltun" writes: > >Finally, the B727 had the same fuselage cross-section as the B707 while the >Trident was several inches narrower. Whats interesting about this is that one airline, Channel Airways I believe, had a 7-abreast version of the Trident. Ouch! -- -Niels From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:32 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl In article Brian Maddison, BMADDISO@BCSC02.GOV.BC.CA writes: >later versions actually had a fourth booster engine Where was this engine? From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:32 From: Chris Dickson Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cray Research, A Division of Silicon Graphics Inc. Brian Maddison wrote: > > I don't believe there were any major operational problems with Tridents I was only a kid at the time , so details are a little hazy, but I'm sure there was an issue over unusually high stall speeds. There were several incidents involving stalls, including at least one fatal crash in which the flaps were retracted too early, causing the aircraft to drop tail first into the ground. I seem to recall that changes were made to the aircraft systems in response to the above, so it wasn't put down entirely to pilot error. > although the early models turned out to have insufficient range for some > BEA routes (LHR-ATH). Particularly ironic since it was BEA who had > insisted on the scaled-down version. They were a bit under-powered and > later versions actually had a fourth booster engine, as we discussed > in an earlier post. I do remember that when we used to fly BEA from London to Malta we had to make a stop in Naples or Rome on a Trident-2, but could fly direct on a Trident-3. From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:32 From: Gary Welch Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Compaq > The BAC-111 did have a little more success, with operators > such as American and Allegheny (later US Air(ways)). I believe that Allegheny acquired their BAC-111s when they merged with Mohawk. From kls Wed Jun 18 02:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:32 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > The BAC-111 did have a little more success, with operators > such as American and Allegheny (later US Air(ways)). Not to mention Braniff. -- 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 Jun 18 02:35:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:35:32 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: Convair 880 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >> There are huge numbers of ex TWA 880s at Mojave, and >> there's the cickey international 990 in tuscon as well as several >> ex Spantax 990s at Palorma, in the Ballerics, and a 880 with no >> marking at some runway in the western desert. (It's somewhere >> north of Albequerque) >The aircraft that looks like a Convair 880 that is located in the >Albuquerque, NM area is not a Convair 880. It looks like one, but it >isn't! It is a prototype Douglas aircraft that never made it into >production. I don't remember all of the details on it, but it wasn't a >large as the 880's, but it had a very similar design. Would you be referring to the McDonnell (not Douglas) model 220 ? This was a 'bizjet' which was entered (and lost) the Air Force UCX competition in the early 1960s. IMHO it was one of the sexiest looking airplanes ever, four underwing jets (J34s) very rakish with much sweep- back on the wings and tail. It was about half the size of a CV880 (66 vs. 129ft long). I am amazed to learn it still survives. Where is it exactly ? ................................................................ Brian Maddison From kls Wed Jun 18 02:36:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:36:55 From: Gary and Marina Subject: Use of CVRs for Prosecuting Pilots Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Telecom Internet Services Reply-To: gparata@xtra.co.nz WARNING! Once upon a time when air transport as we know it was in its infancy a move was made to install cockpit voice recorders in some categories of air transport aircraft. This move was supported by everyone, including IFALPA, as a sensible means of exploring *cause* with a view to *prevention.* Now, it appears, the tide has turned. A high profile 1995 airline accident in New Zealand involving a DHC-8 has thrown this idea completely to the wolves. Briefly, this aircraft was involved in a CFIT accident while on a VOR/DME approach in cloud. The crew were dealing with a hung up landing gear at the time of impact. Three passengers and the sole flight attendant lost their lives, but the flight crew survived. The New Zealand Police (!) made it quite clear in the early stages of the investigation that they were interested in what the flight crew were doing and saying. This was opposed by NZ ALPA who stated that by international convention CVR recordings could only be used for accident *investigation.* An injunction on publication of the transcript was sought by NZ ALPA (because of the intransigence of the NZ Police) and granted by the High Court of New Zealand. But on appeal to the New Zealand Court of Appeal this decision was reversed. This has just happened so I have not had a chance to read the actual decision of the Court. They obviously don't think much of international conventions. Now, theoretically the Police may (and will, believe me, if recent events here are anything to go by) attempt to bring about a prosecution based on the crew's apparent "negligence" with a view to charging them with *manslaughter* (not sure what the US equivalent of that is). There needs to be proper legislation introduced in each country to prevent CVR recordings being used for this purpose. Clearly, relying on international convention is no longer adequate (God knows it should be). So what can we do about this? Petition your MP, congressman, whatever they're called. This practice must be stopped NOW, before flight crew take the matter into their own hands and pull the CVR circuit breaker before flight (and who can blame them) denying the world of an essential safety tool. Working together we can do this. Help us. Gary Parata From kls Wed Jun 18 02:36:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:36:56 From: Subject: Delta MD-90 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprynet News Service What has been Delta's history with the MD-90? I've heard that the experience hasn't been good and I haven't seen one at a Delta gate in several months. Is Delta still operating the type? From kls Wed Jun 18 02:36:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:36:56 From: swestin@ford.com (Stephen Westin ) Subject: Re: Dornier 328 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ford Motor Company In article "biker" writes: > Has anyone informations on performance of the Dornier 328 .... I'm also > seeking desperately a link to an improbable Dornier site. Try -- -Stephen H. Westin swestin@ford.com (spammers to abuse@cyberpromo.com) The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's. From kls Wed Jun 18 02:36:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:36:56 From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: thrust, fuel consumption References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University On 16 Jun 97 21:35:40 , Vangal Venkatesh wrote: >On a 747-400, how much thrust is developed by each engine during cruise >and what is the fuel consumption? Also what's the maximum thrust that each >engine can develop during cruise and the fuel consumption at maximum >thrust? Okay, there are three engine choices for the 747-400, here's data for the GE CF6-80C2-B1F Max Static Thrust: 57900 lb Cruise Flight Condition: 35,000ft, Mach 0.80 Max Climb Thrust: 13160 lb Max Cruise Thrust: 12820 lb Cruise SFC: 0.564 lb/hr/lb That's the basic engine data. As you can see the ratio of max cruise thrust to max static is about 0.2. This ratio drops with higher bypass ratio engines - the GE 90 ratio is nearer 0.18. Flight International also gives fuel burn in lb/hr for the complete aircraft: Max Cruise: 35,000ft 507knots Fuel Consumption: 24983 lb/hr Long-range Cruise: 35,000ft 490knots Fuel Consumption: 21962 lb/hr From kls Wed Jun 18 02:36:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:36:56 From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Fuel consumption References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University On 16 Jun 97 21:35:40 , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >This question is related to fuel consumption for commercial aircraft. In >several books I found that the fuel consumption for a B737-500 (which I >take as example) is of 2700 l/h at cruising altitude and at normal >cruising speed (908 km/h). I will call this value FCCA. > >I would like to know the typical values for the following parameters : > >- Fuel consuption from starting of the engines until reaching of the >cruising altitude. This assumes a plane at MTOW, departure 10 minutes >after having started the engines, a constant *typical* climbing rate. >The value can be in liters or US gallons or l/h or gal/h. This value >will be called FCTO. > >- What time would it take to reach cruising altitude with these >parameters. > >- Fuel consumption from the moment where the aircraft leaves the >cruising altitude until it touches ground. This assumes again a constant >descend rate, MLW, no reversing of engines and shutdown of the engines 5 >minutes after touching ground. This value will be called FCGR. In terms of the engine, it common to quote fuel consumption as lb/hr per pound of thrust produced. Now thrust decreases with increasing altitude and speed. Therefore SFC (in lb/hr/lb) will increase throughout the climb. A typical takeoff value may be 0.30 lb/hr/lb whilst the cruise value may be 0.55-0.60 lb/hr/lb. For the climb to cruise, the climb rate will not be constant. Aircraft normally climb at constant EAS, thus true airspeed increases during the climb. Also thrust decreases during the climb so the climb rate will decrease all the time. Top of climb for aircraft performance calculation is normally assumed to at a climb rate of 300ft/min. Time to climb for short-medium haul aircraft is 25 mins or less. The 747-400 on the other hand takes around 33 mins. Thus, the problems with developing an analytical expression are that SFC, thrust, drag and climb rate all vary during the climb. The only way to get reasonable answers is to do a stepwise calculation with say 5,000ft altitude steps for the climb and similar for descent. You can then at least detemine thrust at the start and end of each step and hence average climb rates. The time taken can then be used to determine the fuel burnt and hene the reduction in aircraft weight. The weight reduction is very small though, no more than 2-3 percent. Hope that helps From kls Wed Jun 18 02:36:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:36:57 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Richard Isakson wrote: > The interesting bit of trivia here is that Boeing had to pay a thousand > dollars per airplane for the first couple of thousand 727's. The patent > for hanging the engines on the aft side of the fuselage was held by a > French designer. This patent was held by Sud Aviation which used this technique on the Caravelle. ----------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@hotmail.com ----> Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage <---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Wed Jun 18 02:36:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:36:57 From: swestin@ford.com (Stephen Westin ) Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ford Motor Company In article Gary Welch writes: > Boeing claimed a trademark (not a patent) on the profile. No, I think they have a patent on the design. This is routine, say, in the car business. > I don't think > any other planes have the distinctive hump. I suspect the goal isn't to > keep competitors from using the idea but to keep movie makers from using > the profile in crash movies and to give Boeing approval rights for any > other commercial usage. I don't think the patent would cover such usage. I think it's done in the car industry to block clones of a popular model. There may be some effort to block third-party replacement body parts through design patents, but I don't know. I suspect Boeing is guarding against the possibility of cut-rate Chinese (or Indian, or Taiwanese...) 747 knockoffs; though folks might not respect the intellectual property rights involved, building a long-range airliner that couldn't enter the U.S. wouldn't be a practical commercial proposition. -- -Stephen H. Westin swestin@ford.com (spammers to abuse@cyberpromo.com) The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's. From kls Wed Jun 18 02:36:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:36:57 From: mba340@club-internet.fr Subject: Re: Iberia fleet renewal References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr Luis Bravo <101523.146@CompuServe.COM> wrote: >Iberia is about to order a new fleet to replace its 28 B-727-200. Airbus proposes a fleet renewal plan on 10 years on exclusive contract basis. From kls Wed Jun 18 02:36:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.restoration Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:36:57 From: Andrew Abshier Subject: Save-a-Connie 1997 airshow schedule online Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK Reply-To: aravm97@fs2.cvm.okstate.edu Hi everyone, While the new official site for Save-a-Connie is constructed, I have posted the 1997 schedule for our airplanes (Martin 404 and L-1049H) at my unofficial SAC site: http://www.cvm.okstate.edu/~groups/students/web/1998/aravm/sachub.htm We hope to see you at one of our airshow appearances! Andrew Abshier SAC member From kls Wed Jun 18 02:36:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Jun 97 02:36:57 From: Peter Coe Subject: Landing speeds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Speaking for myself.org. Reply-To: Peter Coe I was hanging out near SFO at the weekend, and had the opportunity to watch a United 777 and a United 737 doing a parallel landing. The thing I found surprising was how much faster the 737 was going. I would have said the 737 was at least 10% faster on the approach. When I first saw them coming in, the 737 was a way behind, and much higher, but by touch down the 737 was quite a way ahead, So what's the deal? Logic says the bigger they are, the harder they fall, but apparently this isn't true with aircraft. From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:15 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: A320 Cabin Wall markings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Question: I have flown A320s of HP and NW. In both cases, I noticed a pair of markings on opposite sides of the cabin. The markings are upside down triangles about the size of a postage stamp, about 2" from the top of the cabin sidewall panels. They are about 4-5 rows forward of the overwing exit doors. This is the only place in the entire length of the cabin where the markings occur, they appear designed to be unobtrusive (gray or white color), and there is nothing unique about the cabin arrangement or seat row corresponding to the marks. My guess is these mark the location of the main gear emergency extension ports. Thank you in advance for an answer; Ken Ishiguro Orange County, CA From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:16 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: For the Connie enthusiasts Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM There's a nice 2-page article about a flight on a Lockheed C-121C in the issue of Flight International dated 18-24 June 1997. For more info there is a constellation historical society at dmitch@msn.com Regards Alex. From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:16 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: Want a 2nd hand a/c? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Also in Flight, for 18-24 June. For Sale, by tender, Comet XS 235 - Canopus - the only airworthy Comet, with manuals and spares. There's also a static airframe and eight RR Avon engines. Anyone with a few spare $$$? For more info - http://www.philips-auctions.com Regards Alex. From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:16 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Malcolm Weir wrote: [snip] >A lot of people seem to be running around saying Airbus needs to redesign >this or that part of the A330/A340 family in order to achieve specific >goals. But so what? Boeing redesigned the 747's wing for the -400, and >modified the fuse for the -300, and it looks like they're adding 3.96m to >the wings of the 777-200 for the -200X and increasing its MTOW to 333Tonnes. Please don't equate a half-a-billion-dollar project (i.e., the B777-200X/300X) to a three-billion-dollar project (i.e., the A340-500/600). Yes, the B777-200X needs a wing extension, but it's not as expensive as the A340-500 which needs a new wing. >But the 777-200X seems to have hit a bit of a brick wall in that the engine >manufacturers apparently aren't willing to commit to the effort to deliver >power plants in excess of 454kN (102,000lb). I think you're right about this. GE has basically pulled itself out of the competition. (Ironically, the GE90 arguably is the most ideal engine for the high thrust applications.) However, I think with a little marketing ingenuity on Boeing's part, this problem can be solved. >Every product has growth "jumps", and the 777 is not immume, anymore than >the A330 is. The latter was in service first, and perhaps Airbus considered >the time-to-service-introduction more important than building growth into >various parts of the initial design. As Boeing, Douglas and Airbus have all >shown, growth CAN be built into a design AFTER it enters service... You have a valid argument. OTOH, in another follow-up, a poster cited a counter example, i.e., the L-1011 vs. DC-10. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. However, Boeing has always been designing planes with growth in mind. Airbus tends to tailor its design for a specific market. Perhaps that's why Airbus has criticized Boeing for "compromising" its designs. I personally think Boeing's approach makes more sense. From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:16 From: mba340@club-internet.fr Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr Antoin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dalt=FAn?= wrote: >At 00:34 10/06/97, H Andrew Chuang wrote: >>Yes, a new wing for the A340-500, but no new wing for the A330 HGW. >>For the A330 to get to the range of a B777-200IGW, it will also need >>a 90,000lb-thrust engine. Four classes of engine for the A330/340 >>family... I don't think so! All along, Airbus argued that airlines want >>the four-engine configuration for the long-haul aircraft. I doubt Airbus >>will launch an ultra-long-range twin any time soon. > >Yes, Airbus have said all along that the airlines want a four-engine >configuration. But not all of the airlines have agreed. Has A330 >development been delayed by this Airbus perception and have they lost sales >as a result? I fear they may. They can launch this type of aircraft because Airbus argues that there is no fragmentation of the the market while boeing does to justify the 777. Whereas Airbus try to impose its A3XX From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:16 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A330-300HGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com mba340@club-internet.fr wrote: > [snip] > >> If the A330 wants to compete with the 777 it's going to need a new wing. > >> Increasing the gross weight alone isn't going to do it. > > The A330 does not compete with the 777 but with 767. The A340 does. I don't completely agree with you. The A330-200 competes with the B767-300/-400. Like I explain on my homepage. The A330-300 competes with the B777-200. > I never heard about an IGW version but only a shorter version (-200). I did. The A330-300HGW will have the MTOW of the A330-200. This is 230 metric ton (507,000 lb.) compared to the 217 metric tons (478,400 lb.) of the actual A330-300. The range with 335 passengers for the HGW will be 5,500 nmi.(10,200 km.) compared to todays 4,800 nmi.(8,900 km.). The B777-200 has a range going from 4,210 st.mi.(6,770 km) to 5,620 st.mi. (9,050 km). The -200IGW has a range going from 6,660 st.mi.(10,720 km) to 8,270 st.mi. (13,320 km). This makes the A330-300 a rival to the B777-200 and the A330-300HGW a rival to the low range (580 Kpounds) B777-200IGW like for instance BA is operating. The big (632Kpounds) IGW versions compete with the A340-300. That's the way I see it. Comments are welcome. -- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:17 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com jla wrote: > > The advantages of the 777 vs A340/330 are glaring. Airbus cannot just add > centerline gear. This has already been stated and acknowledged. The 777 > was designed with the larger, heavier gear, even at the cost of the add'l > weight and price, to allow for larger and heavier versions of the craft. > The Airbus products, however, will need to redesign the gear to support the > additional weight...a great and expensive $$$ undertaking. I am surprised that none of the postings I looked at mentioned that the 330 and 340 use essentially the same wing. It was designed to accept the bending moments of either 2 or 4 engines. As I recall from an article in "Design News", there is a high degree of parts commonality. Does anyone know how much commonality there is? Yes, the 747 and 777 had teething pains and impairments to growth as well. A friend is an Air France 737 pilot, here are some interesting problems with the 340: 1. Range: Not what was expected, Virgin Atlantic often leaves 10-20 pax behind in winter flights from HKG-LHR. 2. Nose gear: Somehow ended up 20" short. This causes all sorts of wing and elevator incidence problems resulting in a long takeoff roll. Personal experience is both the 330 and 340 sit at the gate nose-low. The takeoff drill seems to be to accelerate to an abnormally high speed, then yank the nose up once enough elevator authority is acheived. 3. Pressurization: Struggles to maintain 10000' cabin altitude, leaves cabin crew fatigued and winded. 4. ECS- Cabin zone temperatures can be individually selected for either deep freeze or broil. This conversation was several years ago, perhaps many of these problems have been corrected. Ken Ishiguro Orange County, CA From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:17 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 737-400 specs. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com MVelure wrote: > > I wonder if anyone out there can post or e-mail the performance > specs. for a B-737-400. I can't seem to find them anywhere on the > internet, and I don't know any pilots who have any time in the 737. > It would be great if I could get the normal climb speed, cruise > speed, descent speed, as well as fuel consumption (GPH) and max. range. > Thanks in advance. Check out http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/tech_sb.htm where I summarized the most common parameters of the B737 series. Normal climb and descent speed is however missing. Cruise speed on the -400 series is restricted compared to the other members of the second generation B737, it is of 840 km/h. Fuel consumption at cruise is of 2900 l/h or 10978 USgal/h. Maximum range with full payload is of 3476 km or 1879 nmiles. -- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@hotmail.com ---->>>>> Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:17 From: Reid Fairburn Subject: Re: 737-400 specs. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 09:35 PM 6/16/97, you wrote: > I wonder if anyone out there can post or e-mail the performance >specs. for a B-737-400. I can't seem to find them anywhere on the >internet, and I don't know any pilots who have any time in the 737. > It would be great if I could get the normal climb speed, cruise >speed, descent speed, as well as fuel consumption (GPH) and max. range. Matt: On this airplane, the speeds are a function of the fabled Cost Index which is entered by the crew into the Flight Management Computer. For large CI values, the airplane goes faster and for smaller values, (economy type), the airplane goes a little slower. Nominal values are 290K for climb and descent, and 310K(.76) for cruise. Compared to other airplanes, it is a little slower. Reid Fairburn Creative Kingdom, Inc. cr_king@cr_king.seanet.com 206-946-9455/4815 From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:17 From: n9821l@aol.com (N9821L) Subject: Re: 737-400 specs. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Normal speeds for a -400 are: Climb: 250 til 10,000 290-300 til .74 Cruise: ECON (FMS) or .74 Descent: .74/280/250 below 10 Hope this helps. I would guess fuel burn would be about 3000 pph per engine. From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:17 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Delta MD-90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises pbyrd@sprynet.com wrote: > What has been Delta's history with the MD-90? I've heard that the > experience hasn't been good and I haven't seen one at a Delta gate in > several months. Is Delta still operating the type? Delta has about 10 of them and yes they are flying. Early on the reliability of the aircraft was poor, but that is usually the cas when a new aircraft is introduced into service. The biggest problems seemed to be in the new type VSCF generators. McD and the component venders have been very responsive and as such the reliability is now quite good. -Seth From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:17 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Delta MD-90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delta Air Lines pbyrd@sprynet.com wrote: > What has been Delta's history with the MD-90? I've heard that the > experience hasn't been good and I haven't seen one at a Delta gate in > several months. Is Delta still operating the type? Delta has 16 MD90 aircraft delivered and in operation. With the BAC-MDC merger in the works I doubt they will get any more. -Seth From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:17 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: '97 aircraft order update Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com After the 'Le Bourget Airshow' the '97 aircraft orders are more equilibrated. Airbus has 180 orders (43.4%), Boeing has 230 orders (55.6%) and MDD 4 (1%). The splitting of familys is the following : A300/310 (7), A320 (141), A330/340 (32), B737/B737NG (122), B747 (12), B757 (12), B767 (69), B777 (15), MD90 (2), MD11 (2). The LOI and MOU from Continental, Finnair, Northwest and TAM are considered as orders, since I assume that they will be signed within the next weeks. Very interesting are the few orders for A340, B747 and B757. The sales of B767 have been pushed by the -400ER. The A340/B777 segment is quiet since the B767-400ER and A330-200 are on the market. For further details,have a look at : http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/orders.htm Note that the big order from THY has been delayed due to the political changes taking place in Turkey. The widebody order from NW is still pending, and Boeing is still trying to sell the B767-400ER/B777 instead of the A330. Regards -- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:17 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Northwest A319 will replace what ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com I wonder which a/c NW will replace with the A319. As we know NW has invested a lot of money to upgrade the flight systems and quiet the engines of 173 DC-9 jets it is operating. -Why would they upgrade the DC-9's and replace them 2 years later with A319 ? -Could noise restrictions be the reason ? -I doubt that NW will replace the B727 (149 seats) with the A319 (125 seats), the A320 would be the better choice. __ Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my a/c orders and backlog page <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:17 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: American 737-200s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Mihir Pramod Shah wrote: > > Brian Maddison wrote: > > > > They never owned the 200s, altho I do believe one or two were leased for > > a short time. Most of the American-owned 200s (N-numbers with AC suffix) > > went to the Kansas City incarnation of Braniff and have since wound up > > with various operators, including Viscount. I don't know where the leased > > ones (GB suffix) went and I can't find them in any current US fleet. > > I've never heard of Viscount. Are you possible thinking of Vanguard, > which does use 737-200's and is based in Kansas City? Just wanted to > make sure... American did, indeed own 737-200's and -300's for approximately 12-24 months, around 1985. They got these when they purchased AirCal (ex. Air California), code OC to obtain AirCal's route system. At the time of purchase, this extended to all major cities from SEA down to SAN, also RNO, PHX?, LAS, ORD, etc. Their hub was John Wayne/Orange County Airport, SNA. AA paid big bucks $450M to gain these markets; ironically the only old AirCal route AA still flies out of SNA is SNA-ORD. All the other routes out of SNA have either been abandoned by AA, or are flown under codeshare by Reno Air (QQ). These routes are SNA-SJC/RNO/SEA. The purchase was probably spurred by US Air's acquisition of PSA, which pretty much competed route for route with OC. AirCal flew 737-200, 737-300, MD80, and BAe 146; all of these flew in AA livery for varying lengths of time after the purchase. Some of OCs -200 fleet was leased to Aloha Airlines. OC also had an arrangement with Aer Lingus; a -200 in EI colors would frequent SNA from time to time. They also flew Lockheed Electras; these were gone by 1980. AirCal and SNA history: Air California started in 1967, when SNA was opened to jet operations. Previously, SNA was serviced by Air West, Bonanza, etc. by F27's and the like. As the local Orange County area boomed, development encroached, and the airport is now one of the world's most noise-sensitive (with a very interesting and questionably safe departure). The -200s were put on less noise sensitive routes, and the MD80s, -300s, and 146's were used increasingly for SNA ops. In 1980(?) Air California had their first and only accident (several minor injuries). The airline was soon renamed AirCal with a new livery (which was one of the most handsome liveries I have seen on an MD-80). SNA is now served by AA,UA,CO,DL,NW,AS,TW,QQ,WN,US,HP, several commuters, FedEx, and UPS. They also have heavy corporate and private operations. The airport is under strict noise rules including jet curfews, allowed aircraft types, number of departures, and number of passengers. This leads to incentives to get as many people out per flight on as quiet an aircraft as possible; numerous 757s, 737-300/-400, MD80/88/90, and A320/310. SNA is capable of 767-200 ops, but none have ever done so, even though AA has 2 SNA-DFW morning flights 10 minutes apart which both go out full. Although the airport has existed at the site since 1923, there is heavy political pressure to close SNA and relocate El Toro Marine Corps Air Station which is closing in 1999. (See eltoroairport.com) Tail numbers and fate of the fleet: The AC suffix is obvious, the GB suffix was also popular, and I believe predated the AC suffix. I do agree this was probably the leasing company. In 1985 I flew the reincarnated Braniff from MCI to MKE and recognized the aircraft as ex-AirCal. The tail number, interior decor, and even the galley carts and trays were still AirCal. Around 1987 I did see a row of 146s in AA colors parked at LAS. I don't know if the MD80s were absorbed into AAs fleet. Can anyone provide more detail on the fate of AirCal's aircraft? The reincarnated Braniff's hub was MCI, so the Vanguard theory holds a lot of water. There is also a website of ex-AirCal employees, with lots of history, nostalgia, etc. Don't recall the URL; try a search. From kls Fri Jun 27 15:37:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Jun 97 15:37:17 From: Joe Stephens Subject: Re: American 737-200s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California born Texans > I've never heard of Viscount. Are you possible thinking of Vanguard, > which does use 737-200's and is based in Kansas City? Just wanted to > make sure... No really, there was a Viscount, I think it has since folded, a charter operation it was. -- Joe Stephens airwest@worldnet.att.com or now at travelcenter@worldnet.att.com "The coldest winter day I ever spent was a summer day in San Francisco." Mark Twain From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:03 From: jeffw@shore.net (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: Re: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Shore.Net; a service of Eco Software, Inc. (info@shore.net) In article , Pete Mellor wrote: >On the last two occasions, I would have liked to have sat in for the >landing, but the first time, another passenger had gotten his request >in first, and the second time, the FO was under instruction, and When I flew to London last year, I had the opportunity to sit in the flight deck of a BA 747-100 as we landed at LHR. It was an experience I'll never forget. I managed to take a few pictures from the flightdeck...you can see them at http://www.smoe.org/~jeffw -Jeff From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:03 From: Chuck Till Subject: Re: Flying in the Jump Seat (was: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Recently I flew on Lufthansa, Austrian, and Air Engiadina within Europe. On all three airlines the cockpit door remained open for the entire flight. For those sitting in the aisle seats of the row #1, this is a good alternative to the jumpseat. From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:04 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Flying in the Jump Seat (was: A319 engines thrust changes during climbing) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 17 May 97 15:15:54 , "Brian A. Reynolds" caused to appear as if it was written: >Non-US carriers have broader discression. Presentation of a business >card to the lead flight attendent with a polite request on the back may >assist you in getting into the jump seat for a time. Sitting in the >flight deck of a DC-10/MD-11/747 while you fly through the tops of >clouds will be somehting you'll remember for a long time. Sitting on >the flight deck of an A/C while flying over the middle of the Atlantic, >with todays newspapers over the windshield to keep the sun out is not so >exciting. :) BA's Concordes have a steady stream of passengers ambling up to peak at what three bored flight-crew look like! BA promotes this, by including a "Certificate of Supersonic Flight" in the "Welcome on board" kit that should be signed by the Captain. Of course, at 55,000ft there is only limited traffic that they need to watch for. Of course, there's not much room up there... Getting in the jump seat of really long-haul aircraft during approach and landing is far less easy: a an aircraft on a route like SYD/LAX carries four pilots, and there are limited seats up there... But during cruise they're usually happy to find someone to break up the monotony. Malc. From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:04 From: "matt weber" Subject: Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Marc Schaeffer wrote in article ... > I wonder which a/c NW will replace with the A319. As we know NW has > invested a lot of money to upgrade the flight systems and quiet the > engines of 173 DC-9 jets it is operating. The Published information says it will be D9's that are replaced. They got the D9's from Republic/(Hughes Air West, North Central, Southern), and some of them are very very old (-20's and -15's). My guess is that only the 'younger' D9's have been upgraded. I remember flying on a North Central D9-20 in 1967 when it was literally brand new, so the -15 and -20's could be 30 years old. I think its a safe bet they are over 20 years old. From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:04 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> I wonder which a/c NW will replace with the A319. As we know NW has >> invested a lot of money to upgrade the flight systems and quiet the >> engines of 173 DC-9 jets it is operating. >They got the D9's from Republic/(Hughes Air West, North Central, Southern), >and some of them are very very old (-20's and -15's). No -20s, but a bunch of -15s and even more -14s. They also got a lot of their -31s and -32s from Republic, and most if not all of their -51s. Their oldest appears to be N930RC, a DC-9-14 (line number 16). It was built as a DC-9-11 and first flew on December 1, 1965. It was delivered to Bonanza Airlines (one of the precursors of Hughes Air West) on January 17, 1966. >My guess is that only the 'younger' D9's have been upgraded. As I recall, that's not the case. It certainly wouldn't make sense to replace the old ones with A319s -- the A319 is *way* too big to replace the older DC-9s in NW's fleet, being more like the DC-9-51s in size. Here are some seat counts, NW trim except for the A319 which is based on UA's seating: DC-9-14/15 8+70 DC-9-31/32 12+88 DC-9-41 12+88 DC-9-51 12+110 DC-9-82 12+131 A319 8+118 With a less stingy F cabin than UA, the A319 is within a couple of seats of NW's DC-9-51s. -- 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 Jun 29 16:47:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:04 From: edhugo@aol.com (EDHUGO) Subject: Re: Cruising speeds - 727, 737, 767, 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Mach number varies with temperature, not headwinds or weight. B727 - Mach .78 B737 - Mach .76 B767 - Mach .82 B747-200 Mach .84 B747-300/400 Mach .85 Those are the recomended Mach speeds. Every airline can modify that depending on their company policy. From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:04 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com I wonder what happens to the Boeing 7x7 series, once the 797 has been used. Will this (future) model be followed by a 808, 818 ... or a 708, 718 ?? Sure this question will only be rising up around the year 2015, but I wonder if Boeing has reserved certain series of numbers, like it is common in the car industry. Perhaps somebody from Boeing can tell us. __ Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:05 From: neil@nsherin.ml.org (Neil Sherin) Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Asia On-Line Limited, Hong Kong. Hi, I think there MIGHT be some HS Tridents still in Chinese military service, but I am not sure. I can recommend a very good book on the HS Trident:- Series: Classic Civil Aircraft 5 Title: Hawker Siddeley Trident Author: Max Kingsley-Jones Publisher: Ian Allen Publishing ISBN: 0-7110-2132-5 Can order through mail at: Mail Order Department, Bookpoint Ltd., 39 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4TD U.K. Tel: +44 0235 831700 Cost: £15.99 Hope this helps! The book has tons of info, photos, history, development info., crashes etc. Regards, Neil Sherin nsherin@asiaonline.net From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:05 From: Antoin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dalt=FAn?= Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:35 18/06/97, you wrote: >In article > adaltun@tinet.ie "Antoin Daltun" writes: >> >>Finally, the B727 had the same fuselage cross-section as the B707 while the >>Trident was several inches narrower. > > Whats interesting about this is that one airline, >Channel Airways I believe, had a 7-abreast version of the Trident. >Ouch! Indeed and they were with one-aisle i.e. 4+3 I think the FAA subsequently introduced a rule saying no passenger should be more than two seats away from an aisle. i.e. max three rows at the windows, five in the middle. Antoin Daltun From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:05 From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nobody but me In article , Andrew Goldfinger wrote: >In article Brian Maddison, >BMADDISO@BCSC02.GOV.BC.CA writes: >>later versions actually had a fourth booster engine > >Where was this engine? It was burried at the base of the tail above #2 engine, sharing the CL intake. Trident 1s and 2s had a bullet like fairing where the engine was on the 3s. From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:05 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Chris Dickson wrote: > > Brian Maddison wrote: > > > > I don't believe there were any major operational problems with Tridents > > I was only a kid at the time , so details are a little hazy, but I'm > sure there was an issue over unusually high stall speeds. There were > several incidents involving stalls, including at least one fatal crash > in which the flaps were retracted too early, causing the aircraft to > drop tail first into the ground. I seem to recall that changes were made > to the aircraft systems in response to the above, so it wasn't put down > entirely to pilot error. I think that you are speaking of the G-ARPI crash which occured on the 18 June 72. The Trident had two types of flaps, normal landing flaps and, in the front part of the wing 'vaultflaps' (forgive me this expression). The lift produced by these 'vaultflaps' was higher than the lift produced by the landing flaps. The 'vaultflaps' could only be put back at 417 km/h, on G-ARPI they were retracted at 300 km/h. Why this was done will never by found out since the CVR was inactive. The Trident stalled and crashed with a vertical speed of 23 m/s and an angle of 31 deg tail first in the ground. 118 people were killed. ----------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@hotmail.com ----> Check out my B767-400/A330-200 homepage <---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/main.htm From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:06 From: Peter & James Liddell <72132.1641@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PSPP The problem with Tridents isn't just that they're British. Tridents have serious design deficientcies, such as needing loooooooong runways for take-off (actually, if the Earth was flat, a Trident wouldn't take off!) and is fairly noisy, and is range restricted, and has a problem with stalling( This applies only to Trident 1s). The Trident just was messed up by BEA. Had the original design gone into production, it would havew sold much better and Rolls-Royce would probably have not nearly gone bankrupt and shut down. -- Peter "All alone in the Lonely Land" From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:06 From: tgg@hpl.hp.com.NOSPAM () Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, England Reply-To: tgg@hpl.hp.com.NOSPAM Andrew Goldfinger (Andy.Goldfinger@jhuapl.edu) wrote: |In article Brian Maddison, |BMADDISO@BCSC02.GOV.BC.CA writes: |>later versions actually had a fourth booster engine |Where was this engine? In the fin, above the middle engine. Wierd. -- The above are my own views, not the views of HP Tom Gardner Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Filton Rd, tgg@hpl.hp.com Stoke Gifford, Bristol, Avon, BS12 6QZ, ENGLAND. Fax: +44 117 9228924 Tel: +44 117 9799910 ext. 28192 From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:06 From: SLOKS@aol.com Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Dimitrios Tombros wrote: > > Are there any HS Tridents still flying (airliner or military)? Why did > this aircraft which was so similar to B727 have so little success? Was > it some kind of construction or operational problem or just bad > marketing? Many have already responded to this question. I'll just add what I recently read in T.A. Heppenheimer's book, "Turbulent Skies (The History of Commercial Aviation)". [If you haven't seen it, the book covers major developments in commercial aviation (aircraft, air safety, engines, airline business and bosses) and weaves them into a fairly good story.] [[John Wiley & Sons 1995]] The Trident received only 3 paragraphs: ". . . Europe's subsidized aviation firms have had long experience in getting things wrong, for with government ministries running aircraft projects as jobs programs, Europe's planebuilders have often built airliners largely to please themselves. The Concorde stands as a case in point. Another lies in the de Havilland Trident, a three-engine airliner of the early 1960s." "The Trident was potentially a good airplane, but the British designed it for one airline and one man: Lord Sholto Douglas, chairman of British European Airways. To fit the needs of his airline, he insisted that the Trident should offer eighty-passenger capacity and a one-thousand-mile range. That meant it would amount to a Caravelle with an extra engine, having negligible appeal to other carriers." "U.S. planebuilders, accustomed to answering "How high?" whenever a customer said "Jump," found Lord Douglas's attitude astonishing. But BEA had income from the Crown, as did de Havilland, which meant that Lord Douglas could feel quite comfortable about the whole thing. As he put it, "They don't change one hair of that airplane without my permission . . . " [The chapter then gets into the development of Airbus.] Sorry for the long post, it's my first to this list. It brought back a memory of my only experience on a Trident. I was a twelve year old traveling with my brother and sister from London Heathrow to Stockholm Arlanda in the summer of '76. A BA flight attendant that was traveling off-duty sat next to me and kept leaning over me and touching me to help me adjust my seat, seatbelt, tray table, etc. If you remember being 12, you know how erotic that was. . . Go Trident! Sloks From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:06 From: "Andrew van der Plas" Subject: Drift Down Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Online Hi there, I have got a couple of questions: 1. When descending to your Min. CRZ level, to what level do you descent if you have calculated FL 141 as minimum cruising level, but you are flying on a westerly heading. Is it then FL 160 (semi circular) or do you still descend to FL 141 ? 2. Why would you use your minimum cruising level, other then decompression ? I am looking for some good examples for my students. 3. When you correct your altitude-indicator for nonstandard atmosphere, do you use altitude above terrain as correction or altitude above sea level. Example: When the temperature is ISA -20 the correction for a MDA of 500' (indicated and true) is about 40', so the bug should be set at 540' (indicated). But if your MDA is 5500' (indicated, which is still 500' above terrain) it is much higher. Let's say this 100'. The bug then should be set at 5600' (indicated, which is still 500' true). With indicated I mean indicated on your altimeter. The reason why I ask, is that I had a discussion with a collegue, who said that the correction should be aplied on the feet above the ground and not corrected from sealevel. I then said to him that the altimeter doesn't know if it flies over a 5000' mountain or 500' above the ground. According our publications my collegue was right, but I still disagree. Replies please via e-mail, because I not always look in this group that often. Thanks in advance Met vriendelijke groet. Andrew van der Plas Adres: avdplas@worldonline.nl Homepage: To Be Done From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:07 From: Jan-Erik Andelin Subject: Re: Update to N801VV former Valujet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland In sci.aeronautics.airliners BAEJS3201 wrote: > on at my companys repair station. Well N801VV is no longer,it is now > Z3-ARB flying for a company called Avioimpex. Does anybody know anything > about this company or at least where they fly Avioimpex (M4) is a charter airline of Macedonia, of former Yugoslavia. They operate scheduled charters mainly to Germany and Switzerland. Other aircraft on their fleet is a DC9-30 and YAK-42. If memory serves me, Avioimpex has a history relatively long back in the Yugoslav days. -- erkki * * * MD80 International Home Page * * * http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/md80.htm Jan-Erik Andelin * phone +358-19-584 622 =C5gatan 63 * e-mail andelin@clinet.fi 06100 Borg=E5, Finland * WWW http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/ From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:07 From: "Lee Tze Yen, Bob" Subject: Re: Logo Technology References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Does anyone know if the new Singapore Airlines 50th Anniversary livery is painted on, or pasted on by decals????? The new livery is seen on SIA's latest B777-200 Jubilee(9V-SQA), one of their B747-400 Megatop (9V-SMZ), and one of their A340-300E Celestar (9V-SCA). " Friendship is so valuable it cannot be sold For it is worth more than a mountain just made of gold........" From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:07 From: "Mark McLean (Oh Behave!)" Subject: Re: Logo Technology References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: @Home Network Reply-To: mmclean@home.com dave lawson wrote: > This is done using a decal made by 3M. I think they call it Scotchcal. > It is neat stuff. It gets used for a number of applications. I think > they also use it on USAir for their striping. You mean.....US Airways? [Moderator's note: No, it's U*S Airways. -- Karl] Mark McLean From kls Sun Jun 29 16:47:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Jun 97 16:47:07 From: "V. Venkatesh" Subject: 747 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM A cousin of mine was flying Sea-Tokyo on a NW 747 on Monday when the captain shut down two engines near Alaska and returned to Seattle. I guess this isn't much of a deal since nothing appeared in the news. When a 747 is flying along on 2 engines, what happens to speed, altitude and total fuel consumption? I am guessing speed, altitude decrease and also possibly total fuel consumption since only 2 engines are running. Vangal. From news Tue Jun 10 11:05:26 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: kchao@acsu.buffalo.edu (Kuang-Chung Chao) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Trent 700-powered A330 grounded in Hong Kong Date: 10 Jun 1997 13:10:46 -0400 Organization: UB Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5nk1qu$m09$27@kragar.kei.com> References: <5m9j4m$lpd@chronicle.concentric.net> <5malh4$b6v@chronicle.concentric.net> <5mehb9$ni4@chronicle.concentric.net> <5n5i28$pju@chronicle.concentric.net> In article <5n5i28$pju@chronicle.concentric.net>, H Andrew Chuang wrote: >...snip... >IMHO, because of a lack of aircraft and aero-engine industries in Asia, >people there tend to be less knowledgeable about airplanes and egines. >Thus, I think the airplane and the engine will have a fairly negative >image in the region due to the grounding. Cathay, Rolls, and Airbus had >better hope the problem won't show up again. Otherwise, no one will want >to fly Cathay's A330. There has been well documented problems related to DC-10, Airbus 320, 747 and most recently 737's design. All were brought to public attention after major accidents. All these model are still flying, none of those problem have any kind of impact on passenger's willingness to fly. Even though I have to confess I don't particular like to fly on DC-10 and A-320. ;) And I very much doubt the people's general knowledge about aviation has anything to do with the spread of aircraft and engine industries. Pierre Salinger announce his ridicules claim first to a French magazine, himself an American. The two countries where almost 100% of the world's airliners are made. And it has been demostrated again and again in this and other related newgroups, most people just don't care which airline/airliner they're flying. Lack of domestic industries and governing body might even help stop senseless witch hunts. regards, kc -- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kuang-Chung "K.C." Chao Tel: +1 (716) 691-5524 Dept. of Electrical and Computer Eng. kchao@acsu.buffalo.edu State Univ. of NY at Buffalo http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kchao From news Sat Jun 21 12:02:45 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!144.212.100.12!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: possible new engine for the B777-200X Date: 21 Jun 1997 14:10:57 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> Boeing did not launch the B777-200X at the Paris Air Show. One of the problems is airlines like Singapore Airlines are demanding longer range capability than what Boeing originally proposed. SIA wants year-round, full-payload (of only 206 passengers!), non-stop operation between Singapore and Los Angeles. That means the 102K-lb-thrust engine proposed by Rolls-Royce and GE would not be adequate. In fact, GE withdrew its GE90-102B offering citing a lack of market demand. Well, I guess it's just a smokescreen. Now, Pratt & Whitney and GE are discussing a new joint venture to develop an engine for the B777-200X/300X. My guess is when Boeing finalizes the B777-200X design, the aircraft may have a range capability close to 9,000nmi. (When the B777 was launched in 1990, I seem to recall the original proposed C-market B777 would have a range of 9,000nmi.) Then, the B777-300X may actually end up with a range close to the current B747-400. BTW, the A340-500 will have a range of 8,300nmi, only. Will Rolls be able to come up with a 110K-lb-thrust engine cheaply? Or, will Rolls just concentrate on the A340-500/600 market? It's getting interesting. With Singapore Airlines (along with American Airlines) as the most likely launch customer for the B777-200X, I think it would be quite appropriate for Boeing to launch the new derivative at the 1998 Asian Aerospace Show in Singapore next February. From news Mon Jun 23 15:17:21 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: jamesr@u.washington.edu (J. Rymsza) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: possible new engine for the B777-200X Date: 23 Jun 1997 16:13:03 -0400 Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5omlco$p9b$29@kragar.kei.com> References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> In article <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net>, H Andrew Chuang wrote: >Well, I guess it's just a smokescreen. Now, Pratt & Whitney and GE >are discussing a new joint venture to develop an engine for the >B777-200X/300X. You didn't mention the most important consideration. How quiet will it be? -- James A. Rymsza (jamesr@u.washington.edu) Architect - UW Design Services ......... Box 352215 (work) 543-8200 x 325 (fax) 543-4117 .......... From news Sat Jun 28 09:17:02 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!194.87.0.28!demos!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: 1997 Aircraft Order Update (June 28, 97) Date: 28 Jun 1997 14:35:40 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5p37fs$44s@chronicle.concentric.net> The URL of the hypertext version of this list is It seems I'm getting some competition. ;-) Anyway, I will keep on updating the list, unless people stop visiting my page. I have also updated the A330/340 vs B777 list, the URL is *** 1997 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Jun 28, 97) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N |Swiss World | 2U | | N |BA | | 3R 5G | | N |KK | 5P | | | N |ZB | 2I 2R | | | N |Boeing BJ | 17 | | N |Sunrock| | 2 5 | | N |FI | | 4R | | N |CO | | 30G 5G | | N |5Y | | 10G | | N |LA | | 3G | | N |TG | 5P 4P | | | N |MI | 3I 5I | | | N |CZ | 3U | | | N |3U | 2U | | | N |CASC | 5U 20U | | | N |Unknown| 1U | | | N |VG | 1U | | | N |DM | | 2 | | |OS | 4P | | | |SN | 1P | | | |SR | 4P | | | |HY | 1P | | | |BM | 12I 8I | | | |AMV | | | 2I | |CA | | 5P | | |BA | | 3R | | |DL | | 70 5P 21G | | |SQ | | 2R | | |KL | | 4 | | |UA | 4I 3I | | | |DI | | 7 | | |GT | | 2 | | |Pembroke | 4 8 | | |ZB | 2I 2R | | | |KE | 4P | | | |ILFC | 1U 1U | | | |BU | | 6 | | |CX | 1R 2| | | |OU | 6C | | | |BR | | | 2G| |KA | 1R | | | |3Q | | 3 | | |CA | | 2P | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 6 14 34 31 28 2| 20 5 31 74 12 12 69 17 | 2 2| | 1997 | A I R B U S ( 131 ) | B O E I N G ( 240 ) |MD( 4)| 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 | 6 2| 20 5 31 74 | | |GEAE | | 10 64 10 | 2| |IAE | 7 22 10 | | 2 | |P&W | 6 22 | 2 5 5 | | |R-R | 6 | 7 3 2 | | |Unknown| 1 12 21 | 2 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 6 14 34 31 28 2| 20 5 31 74 12 12 69 17 | 2 2| | 1997 | A I R B U S ( 131 ) | B O E I N G ( 240 ) |MD( 4)| 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 |Central Leasing | | 9I | N |NW | 50U | | | N |AY | 10U | | | |MH | | 15R | | |H4 | | 4 3 3 | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 6 64 44 31 28 2| 24 5 31 77 12 12 72 32 | 11 2| | 1997 | A I R B U S ( 191 ) | B O E I N G ( 265 ) |MD( 13)| 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 3U - Sichuan 5Y - Atlas AMV - AMC Aviation AY - Finnair BA - British BM - British Midland BR - EVA Airways BU - Braathens SAFE CA - Air China CO - Continental CX - Cathay Pacific CZ - China Southern DI - Deutsche BA DL - Delta DM - Maersk Air FI - Icelandair GT - GB Airways H4 - Hainan HY - Uzbekistan KA - DragonAir KE - Korean Air KK - TAM KL - KLM LA - LanChile MH - Malaysia MI - SilkAir NW - Northwest OS - Austrian OU - Croatia SN - Sabena SQ - Singapore Airlines SR - Swissair TG - Thai International UA - United From news Sun Jun 29 15:01:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!daver!amdahl.com!amd!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: "Phil Ricard" Subject: CF-105 AVRO Arrow Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom13.netcom.com Organization: CADVision Development Corp. Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 04:46:01 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Hi....there is a group of here in Calgary Canada working on building and flying a 1/2 scale piloted rep;ica of the CF-105 AVRO Arrow Check it out at www.cadvision.com/arrowflt/#archive