From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:10 From: Patt Subject: Re: Convair 880 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DFW Reply-To: address@bottom.net Brian Maddison wrote: > >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 ? > > I am amazed to learn it still survives. Where is it exactly ? The 220 was at the FBO on the west end of ABQ airport. With the runway and terminal building construction, the FBO was moved to the southwest side of the aiport several years ago... haven't seen the airplane since, but there is a chance it may be out of view behind the hangar... Patt mailto:pattmcd@swbell.net -- "Lemme hava Diablo sanwich ana Doctah Peppah.. an make et fast.. I'm in a gawdam hurry!" From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:11 From: "François Airault" Subject: Boeing 767 main gear tilt Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Air France Reply-To: fairault@compuserve.com Hi there, Could someone explain why the B767 gear is tilted the "wrong" way, i.e. front wheels down, instead of the seemingly more natural rear wheels down design like the 747, 777 or A340 ? Also, what kind of weight is required to force the rear wheels down after touchdown ? At low weights, the aircraft has a tendency to "tiptoe" after landing. I think the A340 needs around 50 tons on the mains to fully settle down. Thank you, Francois AF B767 From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:11 From: mba340@club-internet.fr Subject: Re: Delta MD-90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr Seth Dillon wrote: >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. I think DELTA exclusive contract ith boeing included the cancelation of MD 90 orders (if the merger approuved) and the purchase of MD90 in service. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:11 From: Andrew Weir Subject: Re; HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Quote: > 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. There was, in fact, no CVR. Bill Tench, ex-head of the accident investigation branch and working there at the time of the crash, has said he and colleagues had been "banging their heads against a brick wall" trying to get CVRs made compulsory in Britain but faced opposition from BOAC and BEA. In the end it came about, on the recommendation of the judge heading the inquiry into the crash, in 1974: the same year, I believe, ICAO mandated them. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:11 From: Henry Law Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None There's a photograph in today's Independent newspaper in the UK of BA managers, supposedly at RAF Wroughton, learning the rudiments of baggage handling and towing aircraft in preparation for a forthcoming strike. And what are they practicing on? A Trident 3, G-AWZM! It's in what looks to have been BA livery, not BEA. But why would an RAF base have a Trident? They are favourites at airports for fire training, but surely military fire crews don't need to practice fighting fires on airliners ... Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:11 From: k_ish Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Please remove NOSPAM to respond. Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com tgg@hpl.hp.com.NOSPAM wrote: > |>later versions actually had a fourth booster engine > > |Where was this engine? > > In the fin, above the middle engine. Wierd. Another wierdness of the Trident was the nose gear arrangement (IMHO ingenious as well). The nose gear retracted sideways, as I recall it swung to the left. The gear leg was offset to the (right?) of the fuselage centerline. The fuselage ribs which carried the forward and aft nose gear trunnions (and thus all the gear structural loads) also formed the doorframes. In profile, the nose gear was aligned with the forward doors. This meant two heavy fuselage ribs could serve multiple purposes, instead of requiring separate heavy structure for the nose gear and the doors. The other strange thing about the nose gear was it had four tires on a single axle. I'm guessing that the narrow gear well limited the tire diameter, so 4 tires were required. Someone out there undoubtedly knows for sure. BTW, I have been fortunate enough to fly a BOAC VC-10 JFK-LHR, and a BEA Trident 3 LIN-LHR (both in 1978). Ken Ishiguro From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:11 From: kls.spam-be-gone@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The nose gear retracted sideways, as I recall it swung to the left. >The gear leg was offset to the (right?) of the fuselage centerline. Backwards -- the nose gear was offset to the left, and retracted to the right. >The other strange thing about the nose gear was it had four tires on a >single axle. I'm guessing that the narrow gear well limited the tire >diameter, so 4 tires were required. But wouldn't that make the axle longer? I would have thought that would be a more critical dimension, since it would have to fit between the cabin floor and the bottom of the fuselage. (I had never noticed this peculiarity of the Trident before.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:11 From: "jla" Subject: Re: HS Trident...VC-10 and BOAC References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM This is true of most airliners built in the U.K. The VC-10 was the ultimate in poor judgement by a manufacturer and abuse by the intended carrier. One of the most elegant aircraft ever designed and built, the VC-10 was an excellent aircraft from all standpoints. Good range, comfortable, quiet, magnificent to fly, short-field capabilities... everything the aircraft needed to make it an excellent seller. The great wing area gave the plane terrific short-field operations and incredible lift. But it was built specifically to BOAC standards. They wanted a long-range aircraft that could land at short or substandard fields for use on their "Imperial Routes" to Africa. It also had to be able to be used on Trans-Atlantic service. Vickers designed and built it, but it was delayed over and over (as other airliner projects had been) due to BOAC's constant changes. The design finally took to the air and was a true beauty, meeting, and indeed exceeding, all of BOAC's requirements for the jet. They then stretched it to come up with the Super VC-10 with added capacity. The aircraft are still flying as tankers today with the RAF (although to be replaced soon), so the design was certainly worth the effort and has withstood the test of time. BUT...since it was designed with such rigid standards for one particular airline, this limited the sale of the airplane to only those carriers who would need it for similar purposes. By the time BOAC got through with their various changes, the aircraft was so late in entering service that the 707 was now quite popular and BOAC ordered them as well. And airports all over the world by this time had updated their fields to support the large, new 707's, which required a longer, stronger runway. So the need for the VC-10 to be able to use substandard, short fields was no longer a requirement. The added weight of the large wing and other design elements demanded by BOAC reduced range and made it unattractive in comparison to the longer range 707 Intercontinental. The aircraft has been hailed as one of the greatest by all critics and customers, with the exception of BOAC, who bad-mouthed the plane for no apparent reason, thereby hurting any other potential sales that may have come along. An aircraft that exceeded all design requirements, was popular with customers and crew alike, a beautiful, elegant design, and (I believe) only 48 were made. Truly one of the saddest stories about one of the greatest jets. -- jla From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:11 From: "Joey The Great" Subject: Re: American 737-200s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp Ken Ishiguro wrote in article ... > American did, indeed own 737-200's and -300's for approximately 12-24 > months, around 1985. You sure? I remember flying an American 737 from San Jose to Reno, and that was in 1989 at the very earliest. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:11 From: kls.spam-be-gone@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: American 737-200s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> American did, indeed own 737-200's and -300's for approximately 12-24 >> months, around 1985. >You sure? I remember flying an American 737 from San Jose to Reno, and that >was in 1989 at the very earliest. His dates are a bit off. American acquired the planes in the AirCal merger (acquisition), which was consumated July 1, 1987. Several of the 737-3A4s lasted into 1992. Unlike the -300s, which were all built new for AirCal, the 737-200s were a pretty random collection of second- hand planes. Of the three which I looked up, all left American in 1989. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Marc Schaeffer (marcmsc@geocities.com) wrote: : 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. Thinking back to the 247D, it's more likely they would keep the terminal 7. [snip} -- Gerry From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: swestin@ford.com (Stephen Westin ) Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ford Motor Company In article Marc Schaeffer writes: > 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 ?? Well, the stillborn SST was designated "2707", so that points out a possible compatible upgrade path:). -- -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 Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Castle Systems Limited On 29 Jun 97 16:47:04 , Marc Schaeffer wrote: > 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. I suppose that it's quite possible that they'll release a 7107 or something like that? -- Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Marc Schaeffer wrote: > 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. reserved series of numbers??? with whom? Isn't that the whole reason that Intel came out with pentiums? They were told they could not stop people from using numbers, only names hence Pentium Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: "Joey The Great" Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp Marc Schaeffer wrote in article ... > 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. You know what? I was sitting next to a Boeing guy on a Midway flight about a week ago, and I asked him the same question. He said that Boeing's pretty much not going to make any new airframes, but rather keep modifying the existing ones. So, the answer would probably be "737-2000." From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: Chris Elberfeld Subject: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: elberfeld@sprintmail.com I seem to remember reading somewhere that Danish charter operator Sterling Airways flew Caravelles on Scandinavia-USA charters sometime in the late 1960's. Can anyone furnish details (fuel stops, how long the service ran, etc)? I also once saw a photo of a Sterling Caravelle at UA's SFO base, it may have been of the aircraft United sold to Sterling. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: "Chan" Subject: B747-400 Maintenance Manual... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Damage Inc., Anybody can help me, where I can get or buy B744 Maintenance Manual CD version. I don't need the most current one. I will use it for my further study. Thanks.. chandra (changu@cyberway.com.sg) From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: "Purushottam B Sane (Nitin)" Subject: 747 lands at a wrong airport Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corp,Nashua, NH In early June, a Saudia 747 landed on a Air Force base by mistake instead of on an international airport (Chennai, India) where it was supposed to land. Runway length at the AFB was half of what was required for 747 to land. However, pilots managed to land it safely but all the tyres of the a/c burst. Indian AirForce has allowed 747 to be flown out of AFB. My question is what needs to be done for a 747 to take off from a runway much shorter than normal required ?? Will they have to remove all non-essential items (seats, etc) and only have enough fuel for it to reach nearby int'l airport ?? From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: 187 Subject: B747 technical questions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: lowwol@christine.pacific.net.sg Some questions:- 1) For the 5th engine which can be installed on the pod under the wings, can it be used as part of the aircraft's engine thereby making the aircraft run on five engines? 2) What is the best EPR number to be attained? Is it the smaller the number the better or the greater the better? Since EPR=turbine discharge pressure: compressor inlet pressure. And why? 3) What is in the inside of an aircraft tyre? I mean is it filled/pumped up with air like that of car tyres or is it built as a solid whole piece?? Thank you. To reply to me, remove the word 'christine' from the reply-to header. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: "matt weber" Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia V. Venkatesh wrote in article ... > 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. Depends very much on weight, and which engines but from your description, the aircraft was probably pretty heavy, so the max altitude will fall, as will the speed. The reduced speed will require different (dirtier) trim settings, and this may result in increased fuel consumption, but probably not by much. P3 Orion are often cruised on 3 engines to improve time on station. Fewer engines running generally means better fuel consumption all other things being equal. If you lose both engines on one side, that will require a good deal of care not to get too close to minimum control speed, and will require a large trim input, which means lots of drag, and probably substantially increased fuel consumption. If it is one engine on each side, and is symmetric (both inboards or both outboards) trim adjustment is likely to be quite modest and fuel economy might actually improve. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: kls.spam-be-gone@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> 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. With two engines out, I'm almost certain the regulations would have required them to divert to the nearest suitable airport. If they were far enough into Alaska, that would have been Anchorage. Closer to Seattle, and if an emergency had been declared, they could have gone to Ketchikan, or turned back to Vancouver. The only way they could have legally returned to Seattle if indeed two engines were out is if Vancouver (and perhaps Paine Field and Boeing Field) were unavailable due to weather or some other problem. (United lists Boeing Field as an alternate, but oddly does not list Paine Field.) >P3 Orion are often cruised on 3 engines to improve time on station. >Fewer engines running generally means better fuel consumption all >other things being equal. The P3 Orion loiters on *two* engines -- they shut down both of the outer engines (#1 and #4). The asymmetry of shutting down only one engine would require enough rudder to counteract the tendency to yaw, which would reduce or elimnate the reduced fuel burn (and hence loiter endurance) which is the point of the exercise. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: "john r." Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , "V. Venkatesh" writes >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. This is very serious, if it happened. Could be that number 2 engine was shut down. Anyone know anymore ? -- john r. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: nestep@slip.net.NOSPAM (Nate Estep) Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Slip.Net (http://www.slip.net) On 29 Jun 97 16:47:07 , "V. Venkatesh" wrote: >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. Hmmm...I don't know, but it reminds me of a joke. I hope you have time... It seems that two business associates were flying to Asia on a 747 for a last minute business meeting. About a quarter of the way into the trip, the captain announces on the PA that the number one engine has developed problems and has been shut down. "This will delay our arrival in Hong Kong by about 1 hour." The two business men glance at their watches, but show little concern. An hour or so later, the captain again makes an announcement over the PA: "Due to mechanical problems, we have lost our number 2 engine. Rest assured that the airplane can stay aloft with two engines out, but expect a three hour delay in reaching our destination." The two businessmen have confidence in the captains assurance, but become slightly nervous. Finally, well past the PNR, the captain announces to the passengers: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have just experienced difficulty with engine number three and have removed it from service. Please do not worry; this aircraft can make it to it's destination on only one engine. We will now arrive in Hong Kong about 6 hours late." At this news, the two business are clearly disturbed. The first checks his watch, turns to the other and says, "You know, if we loose that last engine, we're going to be up here all night!" --Nate Estep nestep.at.slip.net From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:12 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl In article V. Venkatesh, vangal@u.washington.edu writes: >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. Gee -- I guess its a good thing it wasn't an ETOPS flight. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com V. Venkatesh wrote: > > 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. On the 4 Oct 92, a B747-258F (4X-AXG) from El Al lost two engines over Amsterdam during the initial climb phase. The plane crashed. If you loose the two engines after the initial climb phase, you have a reasonable chance to return to the airport. It also depends if you loose the two engines on the same side (1 & 2 or 3 & 4) or one engine on each side, which is *easier* to handle. Certification for a four engine a/c requires a three engine takeoff, I don't think that two engines takeoffs are required anywhere in the world. 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 Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: hatcat@aol.com (HatCat) 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 "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." Not absolutely true. The BAE146/RJ series of airliners use electrical start. The four Allied-Signal engines are small enough to be spun-up with electrical motors. (in fact, the joke is that the plane is actually equipped with five-APU's -- one in the tail and two under each wing!) In this case the APU is for electrical power and air-conditioning, there being no high pressure bleed to or from the engines. A battery start is also possible as long as the aircraft is equipped with a dual battery installation (optional) and the ambient air temperature isn't too cold (affects battery performance). The engines or APU can also be started off of a Ground Power Unit; either 115/220VAC at 400 Hz or a standard 28VDC hook-up. Cheers! JD From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: UnitedSJC@aol.com Subject: Re: Logo Technology References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM While returning into SFO from HKG the other day, we parked next to a UA B777 which had the Star Alliance logo very badly applied just aft of and level with the cockpit window. Since the Alliance was only announced a month and a half ago, this has to be a relatively new application to the airplane, but the most forward part of the logo was already peeling and made a brand new airplane with a brand new logo look very old and beaten up. Not very good advertising for "The Airline Network For Earth". Anyone else seen this same plane or the same problem on other planes? This is the first UA plane that I have seen with the Star Alliance logo, but I assume that it is in the same location or will be in the same location on all. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 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 Mark McLean (Oh Behave!) wrote: > > 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] Methinks the moderator has too much time on his hands....... Mark McLean From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: "Walter E. Shepherd" Subject: NWA DC-4's ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Aerospace Corporation Reply-To: shepherd@courier6.aero.org Can someone out there suggest where I might find info regarding details of the old NW fleet of DC-4's... i.e., tail number, production history (i.e., c/n, C-54?), ultimate fate, etc. One of them played a major role in my personal life as a child... not only was it my first airline flight, but it proved to be a magic carpet ride several years in a row on the JFK to YIP leg circa '53-'55. I recall noting the same tail number on several yearly repeated flights back then... but my memory fails me now. I think it was something close to N545 or N585? I also recall flying a NWA DC-7C with tail number N287 circa 1956-57. I've got a copy of the book "Douglas Propliners"... overall a very good compilation, but shy on data/pix of NWA DC-4 fleet. Thanks in advance for any help... and a belated thanks to NWA to who I will be eternally grateful for what proved to be my personal "Berlin Airlift". -- Walter Shepherd From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: jimcam@arctic.ca Subject: Re: Why do MD80's skid ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NTnet News Server On 1997 0-04-15 gfmoff1@airmail.net(GaryMoffitt) said: gf>In article , Jan-Erik Andelin gf> wrote: gf>> What is the technical/operational reason for so many gf>> (old ?) MD80's doing runway skids these days ? gf>I am not sure that this is technically correct, however it is well gf>known amongst maintenance crews that taxi MD80s, the MD80 is gf>notoriously light on it's small nose gear especially with a light gf>fuel load. Additionally due to the geometry of the nose gear only gf>one of those small tires is in contact with the ground in a sharp gf>turn. In fact mechanics can change a nose gear tire without jacking gf>the nose gear, all they have to due is put a turn on the tiller. So gf>add together small footprint in contact with the ground, a light gf>load and slippery runways. There may be other factors, but these gf>are the ones I am aware of. Mechanics taxiing an empty MD80 are moving the aircraft when it is most tail heavy. An aircraft with engines on the tail is tail heavy empty and nose heavy full. Jim Cameron Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Canada `[1;31;40mNet-Tamer V 1.06 - Test Drive From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: "Ron Wells" Subject: Re: B737 flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virgin Internet Michael Hore wrote in article ... > "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. As an ex-737 driver I recall that the answer is simple: the flaps were not tested above 20,000ft. during the certification of the aircraft. regards Ron Wells From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: Patt Subject: Re: B737 flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DFW Reply-To: address@bottom.net duboille wrote: > Who can explain me exactly the reason of the 20.000 ft limitation for flaps > extension on B737 series.Many thanks in advance. I flew 737-200's from '69 thru 87.. went to the 727, now back on 737-300/500. Anytime the flaps are not up, the airconditioning 'pack' fans come on to increase airflow over the heat exchangers in each pack. The pack fans are not needed at or above 20,000' (cool temperature at that altitude and above) and more importantly, the pack fans could 'cavitate', overspeed, overheat and start a fire in the air conditioning bay in the centersection of the airplane. The same restriction applied to the 727, which had only one pack fan inlet scoop. Although the 737 has one each intake (scoop) for each pack, the restrictions still applies. I apologize for the late post... just found this NG. Patt mailto:pattmcd@swbell.net -- "Lemme hava Diablo sanwich ana Doctah Peppah.. an make et fast.. I'm in a gawdam hurry!" From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: "McElravy" Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > 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. In my original post (copied directly from the Boeing web site) it said "trademark/servicemark" (whatever the difference is). > > 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. Companies often try to trademark strange things for their own "protection." Microsoft tried to trademark windows (the lower case windows) as they applied to computers. Needless to say they were pretty much laughed out of court. It must be a Seattle thing. Evan McElravy cpa1@penn.com From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: air-admin@chicago.com Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM [Moderator's note: Poster's name withheld at the request of the poster.] Don Stokes wrote: >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. Yes, it is an actual patent. It was patented partly because of the corporate annoyance at having to pay a license fee to some no-name French airplane company for every 727 built (no, it wasn't a lot of money, but that isn't the point is it?). So, now Boeing will patent just about everything relevant to a new airplane design. You just never know when it will come in handy... :-) >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? According to local legend, the podded engine concept (like the yaw damper) was explored and implemented on the B-47 first, and therefore ineligible for a civil patent. Too bad, can you imagine what a lovely patent the yaw damper would have made? Every jet transport has one! The capitalist in me just drools. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: Robert Carpenter Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via CAIS Internet Reply-To: rcarpen@LAN2WAN.COM Stephen Westin wrote: > 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 suspect the facts lie between your answers. Surely it's a Design Patent. A Design Patent protect how something looks, not how it works - like a regular Patent does. There is no functional requirement. Bob Carpenter From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: graemec@ibm.net Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net Marc Schaeffer writes: >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. And not only Boeing paid up. I recall a small plate on each of the engine struts of an early (Ser. 3) Viper powered HS-125 acknowledging the licence from Sud. Graeme Cant From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:13 From: "jla" Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > > 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. Not to mention the fact that, after Boeing visiting Hawker-Siddley, the 727 was remarkably (read: almost identical) to the HS Trident! -- jla From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:14 From: air-admin@chicago.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 [Moderator's note: Poster's name withheld at the request of the poster.] jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam]> wrote: >There have been questions about a super jumbo having difficulty >operating at airports because of its wingspan. (gates space etc). Absolutely true. Not just because of gates, but because of clearances between aircraft on adjacent taxiways and clearances between the tail of the aircraft and the service roads that typically runs just behind the parked aircraft and clearance between an aircraft on the taxiway parallel to the runway and an aircraft landing. Oh, and not just the wings, but the vertical tail also plays a role. >Is it conceivable that instead of having 2 huge wings, an aircraft would >have 4 medium wings ? The short answer is no. >Either 2 fore, 2 aft, or like on the old planes, wings below fuselage >and wings directly above, above fuselage ? I've even seen a very nice study on a three surface Large Airplane. (For those who don't know, a three surface airplane, a la Piaggio P180, has a canard forward, a main wing, and a horizontal stabilizer aft.) >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 ? I wouldn't quite categorize it as absurd; that is a little harsh. More like "not really what we want." The arguments go something like this: Biplane designs with one wing above the other are simply not very efficient and at transonic cruise speeds the weak shock on the upper surface of the lower wing would interfere with the flow on the lower surface of the upper wing. Pretty ugly, really. Tandem wing designs are more difficult to service on the ground than a conventional design. Further, they are not as efficient as a conventional design, aerodynamically. Finally, we airplane designers have some pretty serious reservations about failure modes. We don't understand all of them and those we do understand look very ugly. The preferred solution, to coin a phrase, is the same as it was for the 747. Dig up the old taxiways and runways and pour new ones. One time infrastructure revision charges are cheaper in the long run than a suboptimal airplane design, believe it or not. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:14 From: Robert Nielsen 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: AT&T WorldNet Services Fascinating question. I have asked Boeing designers this very same thing; answers were far from conclusive, but basically they said the cruise advantages of long, thin wings were too good to pass up with multiple smaller wings. I'd love to see this studied further. One would expect that computer control of wing surfaces might bring economic benefits and handling improvements with such a configuration. But I really have no technical information to substantiate this. Robert Nielsen Airplane dilletante From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:14 From: jjbivng@HoTMaiL.com (Joe J. Budion, IV) 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 Budion Family Reply-To: jjbivng@HoTMaiL.com >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. Also you have to consider maintance... RIght now if a DC-10 fails that can mean almost 22,000 unhappy customers. If a 727 fails the number goes down a bit to around 5,000 unhappies... Joe From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:14 From: sammy@monmouth.com Subject: Re: Iberia fleet renewal References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Monmouth Internet In article , mba340@club-internet.fr wrote: >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. Hmmm, I thought the Airbus guy at the Paris Air Show said they would never get involved with such exclusive contracts as Boeing did...a little change of heart? Hey, I could be wrong. Sammy From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:14 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Iberia fleet renewal 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: > 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. And in the news you read that Airbus is against exclusive contracts ?? -- 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 Thu Jul 10 17:46:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:14 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , marcmsc@geocities.com wrote: >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. Well, your commment about noise restrictions is definitely a consideration - all aircraft must meet Stage 3 noise in the US by 1999 (anyone know the exact cutoff date?). Consider that legislation like this often leads airlines to make decisions that on the surface do not make sense. For example, when I was with a large US carrier a few years ago, they were putting in TCAS and windshear systems on B727s and DC10s that were scheduled for retirement less than a year beyond the installation deadline. Despite the cost of this modification, the airline had no other choice, as it really needed the airframes in service. In NWs case, the A319 may eventually replace some DC9 aircraft which are scheduled for retirement, but if the deliveries do not meet the deadline for Stage 3, NW would be obliged to either do without the aircraft, or to modify them anyways (even if the period in service is short). ed >>>> Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 <<<< The above statement is the opinion of the author. No endorsement or warranty by the MITRE Corporation is expressed or implied. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:14 From: Steve Lacker Subject: An unusual use of the CVR Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories A co-worker who knows I'm interested in both acoustics and aircraft design stopped by my office a few weeks back and told me about a recent paper he had co-authored. The paper explains a post-crash investigation which had an unusual twist: an unused channel on the cockpit voice recorder was utilized to detect vibrations in the airframe. Although the channel wasn't connected to a sensor or microphone, all the wiring was in place and when certain kinds of wire insulation are vibrated they generate an electrostatic potential- basically a length of wire can act as a very weak piezoelectric microphone. By analyzing the recorded signal from this unused wire, they were able to detect the sound of a failing engine mount prior to the crash. The whole article is now available on the web at: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~iml/stearman/ -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Thu Jul 10 17:46:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Jul 97 17:46:14 From: jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam]> Subject: Re: possible new engine for the B777-200X References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam] H Andrew Chuang wrote: > 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. My image of American Airlines is not one of a long range route network. (Not much in terms of Asia, and just short hops to europe on smallish planes). Would American really need a very long range airplane ? What routes would it use them on ? (existing , new or "wishful thinking" routes ?) From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:22 From: k_ish Subject: Re: American 737-200s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Please remove NOSPAM to respond. Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Karl Swartz wrote: > >> American did, indeed own 737-200's and -300's for approximately 12-24 > >> months, around 1985. > > >You sure? I remember flying an American 737 from San Jose to Reno, and that > >was in 1989 at the very earliest. > > His dates are a bit off. American acquired the planes in the AirCal > merger (acquisition), which was consumated July 1, 1987. Several of > the 737-3A4s lasted into 1992. Unlike the -300s, which were all built > new for AirCal, the 737-200s were a pretty random collection of second- > hand planes. Of the three which I looked up, all left American in > 1989. I stand corrected, my dates were off. Thanks for the correction, and for being Mr. Moderator! In July, 1989 (this date IS correct) I flew the reincarnated Braniff from MCI-MKE. It was an old AirCal 737-200. The cabin was still in Air Cal decor, and a lot of items such as beverage carts and coffee pots still said "AirCal". Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:22 From: Gregory L Smith Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing - Wichita Division Reply-To: Gregory.Smith@Wicihta.Boeing.NOSPAM.com 187 wrote: > 1) For the 5th engine which can be installed on the pod under the wings, > can it be used as part of the aircraft's engine thereby making the > aircraft run on five engines? No, the 5th engine position is just for ferrying engines, not for propulsion. When installed, the aircraft is also more closely restricted in the airspeed and center of gravity range in which it can fly. > 3) What is in the inside of an aircraft tyre? I mean is it > filled/pumped up with air like that of car tyres or is it built as a > solid whole piece?? The tires are normally filled with nitrogen under high pressure (up to 200 psi). From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:24 From: k_ish Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Please remove NOSPAM to respond. Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com 187 wrote: > 1) For the 5th engine which can be installed on the pod under the wings, > can it be used as part of the aircraft's engine thereby making the > aircraft run on five engines? No, this is simply a "hardpoint" to haul spare engines around. I personally have never seen this feature actually used. The engine provides no thrust (and some amount of extra drag). FYI, the 747 does contain a fifth engine, called an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). It is a small gas turbine (jet) engine mounted in the tailcone, and provides electrical power, climate control, engine starter air, etc. to the aircraft, especially when parked on the ground. It provides a small amount of additional thrust, but this is just incidental to its main function. Most airliner have APUs; you can see the exhaust tube sticking out of the tail. > 2) What is the best EPR number to be attained? Is it the smaller the > number the better or the greater the better? Since EPR=turbine > discharge pressure: compressor inlet pressure. And why? Don't know if bigger or smaller is better. A jet engine works by taking a mass of air, adding energy in the form of pressure and temperature, and accelerating it rearward. (like standing on a skateboard and throwing a basketball...you will roll in the opposite direction). The more the air can be compressed, the more energy it will contain, and the more thrust that can be acheived. > 3) What is in the inside of an aircraft tyre? I mean is it > filled/pumped up with air like that of car tyres or is it built as a > solid whole piece?? Aircraft tires are filled with gas; air on smaller aircraft, and dry nitrogen on large aircraft. The wheel/rim assemblies are built up out of several pieces, like a truck wheel. The wheel assembly also contains disk brake assemblies; there can be 1-8 disks per wheel depending upon the aircraft. Tire pressure ranges from 30 psi on small aircraft such as Cessnas, up to 180-200 psi on large airliners. Tires are inflated in heavy metal "cages"- if a wheel breaks apart during inflation, it is like a bomb going off! Hope this answers your questions (except for EPR). Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:24 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions 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 lowwol@christine.pacific.net.sg writes: >1) For the 5th engine which can be installed on the pod under the wings, >can it be used as part of the aircraft's engine thereby making the >aircraft run on five engines? No. It's just a hard point to hang something. There is none of the necessary plumbing to make it do anything. >2) What is the best EPR number to be attained? Is it the smaller the >number the better or the greater the better? Since EPR=turbine >discharge pressure: compressor inlet pressure. And why? EPR is a direct indication of the thrust being produced by the engine. So higher = better. An EPR of 1.0 is an engine not doing much of anything. EPR values will vary by engine type and nacelle design. So a 727 that might have a 2.0 takeoff EPR isn't necessarily more powerful than a 747 with a 1.3 takeoff EPR. >3) What is in the inside of an aircraft tyre? I mean is it >filled/pumped up with air like that of car tyres or is it built as a >solid whole piece?? Air. Or, if you wish, do a search on the archives (www.chicago.com/airliners) for "nitrogen". :-) -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@cactus.org "Bother," said Pooh when his engine quit on take-off. From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:24 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , lowwol@christine.pacific.net.sg wrote: > 1) For the 5th engine which can be installed on the pod under the wings, > can it be used as part of the aircraft's engine thereby making the > aircraft run on five engines? The 5th engine position is for transport only. The engine is not hooked up to the fuel or control system; it is simply being carried to a spares depot or an airport where a replacement engine is needed. > 2) What is the best EPR number to be attained? Is it the smaller the > number the better or the greater the better? Since EPR=turbine > discharge pressure: compressor inlet pressure. And why? Every engine has its own best EPR. It is not a comparison that can be made across the entire spectrum of turbine engines. > 3) What is in the inside of an aircraft tyre? I mean is it > filled/pumped up with air like that of car tyres or is it built as a > solid whole piece?? Air. It's construction is very similar to a car tire. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:25 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia In article , lowwol@christine.pacific.net.sg wrote: >Some questions:- > >1) For the 5th engine which can be installed on the pod under the wings, >can it be used as part of the aircraft's engine thereby making the >aircraft run on five engines? No, it's for carriage only. A number of components are removed and most of it is blanked off to prevent it turning (windmilling) in flight. >2) What is the best EPR number to be attained? Is it the smaller the >number the better or the greater the better? Since EPR=turbine >discharge pressure: compressor inlet pressure. And why? On a Pratt & Whitney or Rolls Royce engine, the higher the ratio, the more thrust is produced, ie 1.72 is take off power (58,000 lbs) on a RR RB211 524G that my company operates but at idle that would be a lot lower. The General Electric engine does not use EPR to calculate thrust. It uses the fan speed (called N1) instead. >3) What is in the inside of an aircraft tyre? I mean is it >filled/pumped up with air like that of car tyres or is it built as a >solid whole piece?? It is a tubeless tyre inflated with nitrogen - as it is an inert gas that is less likely to support combustion (from brake heat, etc). Regards, -- Simon Craig --- I complained because I had no PowerMac; then I met a man who used Windows." - Cloyce Sutton From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:25 From: no@junk.mail (Mike) Subject: Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Instruments In article , mweber@cyberltd.com.au says... > >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. NW operates -10, -30, -40, -50 and -80s. I've never heard of a -15 before, prehaps it is a variant of the -10? Note there are also no -20s. If Republic did operate them then I can't say where they went. It is my understanding that only the -30s have been referbished, which account for the majority of NW's DC9s. The -10s (22 of them) were originally to be replaced by regional jets (operated by Mesaba under the Northwest Jet Link nameplate), but a few months ago NW retracted and stated that money had been set asside to referbish 10 -10s. Although it never publicly commited this, I suspect the remaining 12 will be indeed be retired and replaced by RJs, especially since (surprise) Mesaba has 12 RJs on order. I don't know why the press is saying NW will replace the MD-80 (8), 727 (47), and the "oldest of its DC9 fleet" with A319s. I think this is roumor and nothing more. I say this because (1) I have yet to see anything official from NW on the A319 MOU at all, (2) the Airbus press release says nothing about replacements and hints at fleet expansion (3) None of the indicated aircraft are sized right to replace with A319s. The A320 is is a better 727 and MD-80 match, and the "oldest of its DC9 fleet", the -10s, are about 40 people smaller than the A319 even if NW changed its mind about referbishment. I think the press is maybe getting confused about NW's current A320 order which truely is suposed to be used to replace other narrow body aircraft being retired (no indication of which, but the MD-80s, of which NW only operates 8, will probably go along with a few 727s). If the A319s are to replace anything, it will probably be the -40 and -50 (47 total planes) which are covered by the base order of 50, and furthermore are the right size and I do not believe are referbished. The 100 options if excercised, would probably begin to eat away at the -30 fleet, the oldest of which will coinsidentally be within the 10-15 year life span (the expected length of time NW says they will fly the referbished birds) given current the delivery schedule. -- Because the junk mailers of the world think my address is their play thing, my e-mail address will not be revealed. Please respond publicly. ************Thank you junk mailers for ruining the internet************ From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:25 From: kls.NOSPAM@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 >NW operates -10, -30, -40, -50 and -80s. I've never heard of a -15 >before, prehaps it is a variant of the -10? Well, if you want to be picky, Northwest doesn't operate any of those. For example, they have no -80s since MD never built such a thing -- that's just common shorthand for the -81/82/83/87/88. I can't find any reference to a DC-9-10 in the production list or other references, either. The first 13 DC-9s were all DC-9-14 models as was line number 15. LN 14 and 16 were DC-9-11s, built for Bonanza Air Lines. (Both were sold before the Republic merger and converted to -14 spec, though LN 16 was later purchased by Republic and is now the oldest DC-9 in the NW fleet.) LN 17 was the first DC-9-15, built for KLM. That model differs from the -14 in having higher thrust engines and a higher MGTOW. As of about three years ago, the specific DC-9 models operated by NW, along with how many they then had, were as follows: -14 (15) -15 (7) -31 (55) -32 (22) -41 (12) -51 (28) -82 (8) >Note there are also no -20s. If Republic did operate them then I >can't say where they went. One reference describes this model as having a -10 series fuselage with the larger -30 wing and -40 engines. It was a special version for SAS, who bought only ten. I'd be surprised if Republic ever had any. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:25 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: NWA DC-4s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Walter E. Shepherd wrote: >Can someone out there suggest where I might find info regarding details >of the old NW fleet of DC-4's... i.e., tail number, production history >(i.e., c/n, C-54?), ultimate fate, etc. One of them played a major role >in my personal life as a child... not only was it my first airline >flight, but it proved to be a magic carpet ride several years in a row >on the JFK to YIP leg circa '53-'55. I recall noting the same tail >number on several yearly repeated flights back then... but my memory >fails me now. I think it was something close to N545 or N585? I also >recall flying a NWA DC-7C with tail number N287 circa 1956-57. Northwest operated around 30 DC-4s between 1945 and 1961. They all had 5-digit N-numbers except one (N350E). The DC-6As were N566 to N582 so it would appear your flights were on a -6A. (Hint: round windows = DC-4, square windows = DC-6). The DC-7Cs ran from N284 to N297. A good reference is Piston Airliner Poduction List from TAHS(UK). You can get it from Plane Crazy, Miami or Aviation Hobby Shop, Toronto. ................................................................ Brian Maddison From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:25 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl wrote: >The P3 Orion loiters on *two* engines -- they shut down both of the >outer engines (#1 and #4). The asymmetry of shutting down only one >engine would require enough rudder to counteract the tendency to yaw, >which would reduce or elimnate the reduced fuel burn (and hence loiter >endurance) which is the point of the exercise. Ditto the RAF "Nimrod" LRMP aircraft. Regards Alex. (not speaking for Eurocontrol) From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:26 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Marc Schaeffer wrote: >On the 4 Oct 92, a B747-258F (4X-AXG) from El Al lost two engines over >Amsterdam during the initial climb phase. The plane crashed. If you >loose the two engines after the initial climb phase, you have a >reasonable chance to return to the airport. It also depends if you loose >the two engines on the same side (1 & 2 or 3 & 4) or one engine on each >side, which is *easier* to handle. Hmm. There's "lose" and there's "lose". The El Al flight "lost" 2 engines in that one fell off and knocked off the other. Rather different from "losing" thrust on two engines which thereafter remain firmly attached to the wing. Regards Alex. (not speaking for Eurocontrol) From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:26 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Marc Schaeffer wrote: >Certification for a four engine a/c requires a three engine takeoff, >I don't think that two engines takeoffs are required anywhere in the >world. I recall an incident in the 1980s. A Continental 747 bound for Newark took off from Gatwick in a strong crosswind (LGW has only 1 runway). Due to fuselage blanking both downwind engines flamed out. The 747 just made it into the air, taking part of the hedgerow with it but was unable to climb out of ground effect. Luckily there is no high terrain around LGW and after a terrifying long and low circuit a return landing was made. At no time did the flight exceed 1000ft and the aircraft sustained u/c damage during takeoff and the subsequent over-gross landing. The two operating engines were also toast I believe as they were in max for the entire flight. Sorry, don't have exact dates or references. ................................................................ Brian Maddison From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:26 From: jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam]> Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam] re: two engines shut down while over alaska. If one one engine were to shutdown while in cruise, would the pilots prefer to shut down the reciprocal engine on the other wing in order to keep symetric thrust ? Would they then turn it back on during the landing phase to permit an "abort/turn around" or would the plane be light ebough by then to allow the 747 to run on 2 engines should it need to abort the landing at the last minute ? From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:26 From: Vangal V Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington Nate Estep wrote: > Hmmm...I don't know, but it reminds me of a joke. I hope you have > time... Hi, thats a good one :) Well I thought I'll pass more details: The flight was Northwest 7 Sea-Tokyo and the date was June 16,1997. I guess I can say for certain that it came back to Seattle. I looked in the ntsb home page for a report but didn't find any. Vangal V. From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:27 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com V. Venkatesh wrote: > > 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. Nothing appeared in the news since this didn't happen. There is still no report on the NTSB homepage. If this would have happened they would have landed at the first available airport. I think your cousin has quite a good imagination. :-) __ 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 Jul 11 02:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:27 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Karl Swartz wrote: > The P3 Orion loiters on *two* engines -- they shut down both of the > outer engines (#1 and #4). The asymmetry of shutting down only one > engine would require enough rudder to counteract the tendency to yaw, > which would reduce or elimnate the reduced fuel burn (and hence loiter > endurance) which is the point of the exercise. I know that Dan Air reduced to idle the two outer engines on their Comets during cruise. The same practice applies to the Nimrods which the RAF is still using. I think that international regulations forbid the 'Dan Air' practice for commercial aircrafts nowadays, any comments ? 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 Jul 11 02:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:27 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: 747 lands at a wrong airport 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) "Purushottam B Sane (Nitin)" writes: >My question is what needs to be done for a 747 to take off from a runway >much shorter than normal required ?? Will they have to remove all >non-essential items (seats, etc) and only have enough fuel for it to >reach nearby int'l airport ?? You got it. There are companies that specialize in such. Strip the a/c, unloading everything [not just seats, entire interior...] and a few minutes of fuel. [Wonder if they could/would pull the APU?] Then... wait for the right weather. Cool enough, enough headwinds, clear shot to the bigger field. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:27 From: sammy@monmouth.com Subject: Re: 747 lands at a wrong airport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Monmouth Internet In article , "Purushottam B Sane (Nitin)" wrote: >My question is what needs to be done for a 747 to take off from a runway >much shorter than normal required ?? Will they have to remove all >non-essential items (seats, etc) and only have enough fuel for it to >reach nearby int'l airport ?? If I remember correctly, Boeing was consulted on this, as to how to get this plane to take off from such a short runway, i believe they took out the lavs, and stuff to reduce weight... Sammy From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:27 From: m@bang.org Subject: Re: 747 lands at a wrong airport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: a2i network "Purushottam B Sane (Nitin)" wrote: > what needs to be done for a 747 to take off from a runway much > shorter than normal required ?? Will they have to remove all > non-essential items (seats, etc) and only have enough fuel for > it to reach nearby int'l airport ?? This depends on several factors including the specific configuration of 747 (i.e. empty weight, thrust, etc.), the length of the runway, the temperature, winds, and air pressure at the time of take off. Obviously, the plane would not be loaded with pax, cargo, or more fuel than needed to get to a suitable airport, plus some fuel for safety reserve. If the plane were still too heavy, then monuments (e.g. seats, closets, lavs, galleys) would be removed. M Carling -- Microsoft Network is prohibited from reproducing this work, in whole or in part. Copyright 1996, M Carling. License is available to Microsoft Network to reproduce this work for $1000. Unauthorized reproduction by Microsoft Network constitutes agreement to these terms. Please report violations to m@bang.org and postmaster@microsoft.com. From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:28 From: Ian McAndrew Subject: Aileron control on Airbus Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cumbria, England On a flight to Italy recently, my first on an Airbus, I was looking at the wing and it appeared to me that there were no conventional ailerons. There was a control surface close to the fuselage which showed a lot of activity during the approach but only in a downward direction (on my side - I assume there was a matching one doing the same on the other side :-) At no time did it move up and from the look of it I don't think it was possible anyway. The impression I got was that turns were initiated by increasing lift on the wing at the outside of the turn without a matching aileron decreasing lift on the inside wing. Did I miss something or is my interpretation of what I saw correct? -- Ian McAndrew Past "sell by date" Chipmunk pilot" From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:28 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com H Andrew Chuang wrote: > 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. Both will just get a wing extension, at least that's what you can read on the net and in the magazines. Airbus writes on their website that the A340-500/600 wing will be a stretched version of the existing -300 wing. Same for the B777-200X wing which will be stretched from todays wing. Could you please explain : - what difference between the so called new -500/600 wing and the existing -300 wing there will be - where you got these figures (500M$ and 3B$) - what would justify this difference (is the Trent 500 included ?) 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 Jul 11 02:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:28 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany On 27 Jun 97 15:37:17 , Ken Ishiguro wrote: >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. The nose gear "ended up" short to facilitate shorter takeoff runs, actually. By reducing aircraft incidence, the wing operates at a lower lift coefficient during roll and thus incurs less induced drag. Less drag implies better acceleration, except the thrust line gets inclined downwards or the intake performance is impaired by this measure. Burkhard TUB Aero & Astro From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:28 From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: B767 design fault (feature?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Your Organization >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? I would not consider this subject to be named a B767 design fault. Passenger seats are a decision made by the airline and little to do with Boeing. Several years ago I spent a week with Boeing Customer Engineering in Renton, WA. At that time I was told by the Manager of Customer Engineering that Boeing does not purchase the seats that they use in the aircraft. Each airline is responsible for the purchase and delivery of the seats to the final production line. In the early '80s, Boeing was finding that it was spending much in resources to expedite the delivery of seats that had been ordered by various airlines for their aircraft. The seats were not being delivered in time to make aircraft delivery schedults. Boeing was threatening to finish the aircraft without the seats and park them on the ramp until the seats were delivered. From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:28 From: mckinnis@ccnet.com (Gary McKinnis) Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCnet Communications (510-988-7140 guest) "Francois Airault" writes: >Could someone explain why the B767 gear is tilted the "wrong" way, i.e. >front wheels down, instead of the seemingly more natural rear wheels >down design like the 747, 777 or A340 ? Hmmm. I've thought about that, too. I have a theory. With a nose-high attitude on landing, the main gear trucks are very close to parallel to the landing surface at touchdown. Perhaps this imposes less stress on the gear and spreads tire wear equally. Gary From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:29 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , fairault@compuserve.com wrote: > Could someone explain why the B767 gear is tilted the "wrong" way, i.e. > front wheels down, instead of the seemingly more natural rear wheels > down design like the 747, 777 or A340 ? > > Also, what kind of weight is required to force the rear wheels down > after touchdown ? At low weights, the aircraft has a tendency to > "tiptoe" after landing. I think the A340 needs around 50 tons on the > mains to fully settle down. Whether or not the 767 gear tilts the wrong way is a matter of individual interpretation. Actually, when the landing is properly executed, all four wheels on each truck touch simultaneously. If it "tiptoes" on the forward pair, the plane hasn't been flared properly. The 767 is not the only plane to have forward-slanting main trucks, by the way. I believe the A340's main gear tilts the same way (if it's not the A340 it's something else, but I distinctly remember noting a specific airliner model with forward slanting main gear while filming on the runways at Heathrow last month). While the 777's gear sits with a rear tilt, it's actually powered in and out of this position. When the gear is retracted, the main trucks are powered to a horizontal position, and then the gear is retracted. When the gear is lowered, the trucks remain 90-degrees to the strut until the gear is fully down. Then the main trucks are powered (or released; I left my 777 systems manuals at work) to their slanted position. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:29 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >Could someone explain why the B767 gear is tilted the "wrong" way, i.e. >front wheels down, instead of the seemingly more natural rear wheels >down design like the 747, 777 or A340 ? A tilt of 17 degrees forward is to allow the gear to fit into the wheel wells. I don't know of any other reason. The tilt is also part of the air/ground logic, ie when the gear is tilted, a switch is made, telling the a/c it has left the ground. Regards, -- Simon Craig --- Do you like old aircraft? Visit my Connie Page! From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:29 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: possible new engine for the B777-200X References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam]> wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: >> 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. > >My image of American Airlines is not one of a long range route network. >(Not much in terms of Asia, and just short hops to europe on smallish >planes). Up to now, AA's interest in Asia seems to be limited to Japan only. However, AA has just announced that it will start codeshare services to Taipei via Vancouver with Canadian International. The new service is made possible because of the ealier open skies bilateral with Canada and the more recent one with Taiwan. AA also has codeshare services between Chicago and Singapore on 12 of SQ's 26 trans-Pacific flights out of LAX and SFO. I'm not sure about AA's long term plan for Asia, but the recent codeshare agreements do indicate AA has shown stronger commitment to the region than before. AA's interest in the B777-200X is an important factor in Boeing's shelving of the B777-100X. (If the report by Flight International is correct, AA is also interested in the B777-300X which doesn't make too much sense with AA's existing network.) Early last year, soon after having secured B777 orders from Singapore and Malaysia, Boeing ran an ad campaign in the Far East boasting the versatility of the B777 family (i.e., the -100X, -200, and -300) for Asian carriers. Even not too long ago, SQ still has expressed preference for the -100X. Now, Boeing is trying to convince SQ that the -100X is simply too small. >Would American really need a very long range airplane ? What routes >would it use them on ? (existing , new or "wishful thinking" routes ?) >From Dallas and Chicago (AA's major hubs), ultra-long-range planes are needed for destinations like Taipei, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Manila, etc. However, yields on non-Japanese trans-Pacific routes are traditionally low. Hong Kong may be a little bit better. Currently, UA is the only carrier with more than two daily flights between the US and HKG. With the new CLK airport, HKG should not be overlooked (but then again, DL did not make it the first time). Cathay is expected to make a major expansion to the US when the CLK airport opens next year. Thus, competition can be very tough in HKG. With a booming economy and a large Vietnamese popluation in the US, Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) should have a great potential. At this time, there is no direct link between the two countries. Airlines like CX, BR, CI, etc., are carrying a lot of six-freedom traffic between the US and Vietnam. Bangkok is underserved, so are Jakarta and Manila. The national airlines of the latter two citis have less than desirable image. Thus, they may offer some opportunities for the US carriers like AA. Well, just some random thoughts. From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:29 From: kls.NOSPAM@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: possible new engine for the B777-200X References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >With the new CLK airport, HKG should not be overlooked (but then >again, DL did not make it the first time). I thought a big part of DL's problem was that the MD-11 couldn't really fly LAX-HKG with a reasonably full load, at least not consistently. Also, I don't think DL flew beyond HKG, whereas UA continues on to at least SIN and DEL. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:30 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: Transatlantic Caravelle References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Chris Elberfeld wrote: >I seem to remember reading somewhere that Danish charter operator >Sterling Airways flew Caravelles on Scandinavia-USA charters >sometime in the late 1960's. Can anyone furnish details (fuel stops, >how long the service ran, etc)? According to Airliners magazine (Vol 1 No 1), the first transatlantic Sterling Caravelle service was in 1970 and routed CPH-KEF-YQX-OMA-SFO ! Don't know how long the service lasted but I doubt many customers came back for a second trip after such an itinerary. ................................................................ Brian Maddison From kls Fri Jul 11 02:09:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:30 From: Robert Nielsen Subject: EU Objects to Boeing Merger Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services With the EU loudly proclaiming that the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger should be prohibited unless certain (unspecified) remedies are offered, it is prudent to recall the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for; your wish might be granted." Boeing has already backed down from exclusivity agreements negotiated with three American airlines. Spinning off Douglas as a separate company is absurd; Douglas couldn't sustain business by itself, couldn't borrow (or pay back) enough money for new products, and has already failed to find a partner or buyer. Operators of McDonnell Douglas commercial airplanes would be left without parts or support, and with rapidly devalued assets. So let us suppose Boeing negotiates with the EU but cannot satisfy the Europeans. The opportunity to merge with McDonnell Douglas and strengthen its defense side is too good to pass up (and has been approved by U.S. authorities), so the merger takes place and Boeing regretfully announces that to comply with the wishes of the EU, it is suspending sales of commercial airplanes to EU countries (but of course, will maintain customer service and parts). It also announces it is redoubling its sales efforts in the rest of the world -- and most particularly in Asia -- to make up for the loss of market. Where does this leave the EU? In the insane position of having effectively dictated that its member countries may only purchase Airbus airplanes -- the very sort of market exclusivity it has recently so loudly decried. The EU has also threatened to seize "Boeing" assets in Europe, to include airplanes. Should this happen, the EU could be accused of theft in international courts, because those airplanes do not "belong" to Boeing, they belong to the airlines or banks or leasing companies who have purchased them. It is amusing to speculate what criticism the EU would bring down upon itself from the international press (the American press aside), not to mention the howls from European airlines who have been more successful choosing equipment themselves rather than having it ordained by a government (British Airways being a superb example). And where does this leave Airbus? In the wretched position of having to have "daddy" protect it from competition because it is too weak, technically inferior, or so poorly run that it cannot really contend on a global scale. And it faces an even hungrier Boeing, determined to maintain market share without EU sales. If the EU gets it wish and wrestles Boeing to the ground with threats of fines and seizures, it may wake up one fine morning in August and find it has a truly monstrous public relations problem on its hands, and no graceful way to ameliorate it. In my humble opinion, the EU would do well to end its pointless carping about the Boeing merger and get to work putting Airbus together as a truly competitive corporation. If this does not happen, Boeing will have Airbus for lunch because the consortium will implode on its own squabbling. And as an afterthought, might I add that the LAST thing Airbus needs to do right now is pour $10+ billion into an airplane larger than a 747. These are some of the people who gave the world the FASTEST unsaleable airplane, must they now also provide the LARGEST unsaleable airplane? It would make far more sense to attend to the "middle" of the Airbus line, and fit the A300 and A310 with sidestick controls, fly-by-wire, and payload and range improvements that really are superior to the Boeing offerings. It can then market the truly integrated family of airplanes that seems to exist, so far, only in Airbus sales brochures. From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:48 From: "Michel Gammon" Subject: Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sympatico > Consider that legislation like this often leads airlines to make decisions > that on the surface do not make sense. For example, when I was with a large > US carrier a few years ago, they were putting in TCAS and windshear systems on > B727s and DC10s that were scheduled for retirement less than a year beyond the > installation deadline. Despite the cost of this modification, the airline had > no other choice, as it really needed the airframes in service. > > In NWs case, the A319 may eventually replace some DC9 aircraft which are > scheduled for retirement, but if the deliveries do not meet the deadline for > Stage 3, NW would be obliged to either do without the aircraft, or to modify > them anyways (even if the period in service is short). One other factor to consider is that even if the usage after modification is short, the aircraft will be sold and will no doubt be easier to sell if they are Stage 3 compliant or have TCAS or whatever. That way the new airline can simply slap on its name and keep flying, essentially. Otherwise, it would be like trying to sell a Cadillac with manual transmission. Mike Gammon From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:49 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 , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: > >> 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. > >Both will just get a wing extension, at least that's what you can read >on the net and in the magazines. Airbus writes on their website that the >A340-500/600 wing will be a stretched version of the existing -300 wing. >Same for the B777-200X wing which will be stretched from todays wing. > >Could you please explain : > >- what difference between the so called new -500/600 wing and the >existing -300 wing there will be No. The A340-500/600 wing is not just a wing extension. The simple fact that the A340-500 is slightly larger than the A340-300 (318 pax vs 295 pax in tri-class configuration) is because of the new wing that Airbus has to plug additional frames in the center section. >- where you got these figures (500M$ and 3B$) Various reports. With the definition of the B777-200X getting heavier everyday, I think the $500M will be low for the -200X, but I doubt it will go over $1B. Just for a reference, I believe the B777-300 cost about $500M. >- what would justify this difference (is the Trent 500 included ?) No. Engine development cost is not included. With the heavier than the orginal anticipated -200X, engine development cost for the heavier -200X may be very similar to the cost to develop the Trent 500. From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:49 From: kls.NOSPAM@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >- what difference between the so called new -500/600 wing and the >existing -300 wing there will be The current wing is designed to accomodate either two relatively large engines (A330) or four considerably lighter engines (A340-200/300). The A340-500/600 will have four engines, each larger (and heavier) than the two on the A330. That added engine weight alone imples some substantial changes. (The 777 was designed with 100,000+ lbs thrust engines in mind from the outset.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:50 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Aileron control on Airbus References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Please remove NOSPAM to respond. Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Ian McAndrew wrote: > On a flight to Italy recently, my first on an Airbus, I was looking at > the wing and it appeared to me that there were no conventional ailerons. > There was a control surface close to the fuselage which showed a lot of > activity during the approach but only in a downward direction (on my > side - I assume there was a matching one doing the same on the other > side :-) > At no time did it move up and from the look of it I don't think it was > possible anyway. The impression I got was that turns were initiated by > increasing lift on the wing at the outside of the turn without a > matching aileron decreasing lift on the inside wing. I am not an Airbus expert, but many aircraft use an inboard "cruise aileron" at cruise speeds which is coupled to the autopilot and is in fairly constant motion to maintain wings-level. At intermediate airspeeds, flaps and spoilers are used to generate roll. At approach speeds, conventional outboard ailerons are used. (The outboard ailerons on most older generation aircraft are mechanically locked- accidental full deflection at cruise speed would not be pretty!) On an A320, I noted the outboard ailerons were used at all airspeeds and there appeared to be no inboard ailerons. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:50 From: "Andrew L. Stern" Subject: Q: Smoking on flight deck Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM With my first novel getting closer to publication, I'm working on my second--a news media thriller with an aviation "twist." I have a scene in the cockpit of an airliner, where the captain lights up a cigarette. The cigarette has nothing to do with the plot--he happens to be a smoker. My question is: Last I heard, the FAA allows the cockpit crew to smoke, because of nicotene's benefits with regard to alertness. I would very much appreciate if someone in the know could tell me if this is still true? Please e-mail me, because I don't see all the posts. Thanks, Andy From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:50 From: Michael Carley Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. k_ish writes: >187 wrote: >> 1) For the 5th engine which can be installed on the pod under the wings, >> can it be used as part of the aircraft's engine thereby making the >> aircraft run on five engines? >No, this is simply a "hardpoint" to haul spare engines around. I >personally have never seen this feature actually used. The engine There was a photo in last week's Aviation Week of a BA 747-400 which had an extra engine attached for delivery to Britain. It was the most convenient way of getting a spare to BA. -- ``Permitt not your schollars to ramble abroad, especially lett them not soe much as peepe into a tavern or tipleing house'' (Provost Loftus). Michael Carley, Mech. Eng., TCD, IRELAND. m.carley@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie Home page From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:50 From: Jay Biederman Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA Reply-To: jbb@seanet.com C. Marin Faure wrote: > > 3) What is in the inside of an aircraft tyre? I mean is it > > filled/pumped up with air like that of car tyres or is it built as a > > solid whole piece?? > > Air. It's construction is very similar to a car tire. Actually the tires are inflated with nitrogen gas. This is because the tire pressure stays fairly constant over large variations in temperature. Also, if I remember correctly, the tires are inflated to around 140 PSI. Jay Biederman From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:50 From: Wilken <"wilken@wilken"@atl.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Why do MD80's skid ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unknown Organization Reply-To: "wilken@wilken"@atl.mindspring.com jimcam@arctic.ca wrote: > On 1997 0-04-15 gfmoff1@airmail.net(GaryMoffitt) said: > >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. > > Mechanics taxiing an empty MD80 are moving the aircraft when it is most tail > heavy. An aircraft with engines on the tail is tail heavy empty and nose > heavy full. The DC-9 (MD-80 is in fact type certified as a DC9-80) can truely have a nose wheel changed without jacking the nose provided no pasangers or bags are loaded. As a Delta mechanic I have seen some get caught by not changing the wheel fast enough before loading for the nose sank enough with weight that the wheel could not be put back on in time. From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:50 From: kls.NOSPAM@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Why do MD80's skid ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The DC-9 (MD-80 is in fact type certified as a DC9-80) ... As discussed in the past, *some* are certified as DC-9s. It's back in the archives (http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html) but I think the MD-83 is the first member of the series for which the FAA accepted MD-83 as a legal alias, and the MD-88 was the first which is listed as such on the type certificate. The MD-88 (and MD-87) are thus not legally DC-9s, though the -81, -82, and -83 all are. >... can truely have a nose wheel changed without jacking the nose >provided no pasangers or bags are loaded. Is this touted by MD when trying to sell the DC-9 and its derivatives? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:51 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: 747 lands at a wrong airport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services David Lesher wrote: > You got it. There are companies that specialize in such. Strip the > a/c, unloading everything [not just seats, entire interior...] > and a few minutes of fuel. [Wonder if they could/would pull > the APU?] > > Then... wait for the right weather. Cool enough, enough headwinds, > clear shot to the bigger field. But bear in mind a 747 can get airborne in around 4000 feet if it has to with a light load, even when operating commercially I've seen it many times Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:51 From: k_ish Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Please remove NOSPAM to respond. Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com jfmezei wrote: > If one one engine were to shutdown while in cruise, would the pilots > prefer to shut down the reciprocal engine on the other wing in order to > keep symetric thrust ? I fly to HKG a lot, and can usually visit the flight deck simply by asking (foreign airlines). Quite often, one engine on 747-400s is deliberately throttled back to "flight idle" simply because they don't need it. Also, if you happen to see a 747 at cruise flying overhead, quite often there will be only 3 vapor trails. Usually, number 3 engine appears idle. > Would they then turn it back on during the landing phase to permit > an "abort/turn around" or would the plane be light ebough by then to > allow the 747 to run on 2 engines should it need to abort the landing at > the last minute ? On the other hand, I was once flying to HKG on a UA 747-400. One engine had to be shut down about 30 minutes north of NRT, this necessitated a precautionary landing there. Probably some regulations prohibit continued flight with a known bad engine, especially overwater (once the flight clears southern Japan, the next landfall is Taiwan, about 3.5 hours overwater). Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:51 From: dzul@theos.com (dzul) Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd Reply-To: dzul@theos.com In message - jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam]> writes: >If one one engine were to shutdown while in cruise, would the pilots >prefer to shut down the reciprocal engine on the other wing in order to >keep symetric thrust ? the three engines performance is not much different from the four engines performance. so there is no need for u to shutdown the reciprocal engine. you should never shut down an engine when it does not need to be shut down. dzul email: dzul@theos.com webpage : http://theos.com/~dzul From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:51 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >V. Venkatesh wrote: >> 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. >Nothing appeared in the news since this didn't happen. On what do you base that assertion? Were you on that flight so you know for a fact that it did not happen? According to sources who requested anonymity, NW flight 7 (SEA-NRT) on Monday, June 16, 1997 suffered an in-flight shutdown of the #3 engine two hours into the flight, due to lack of oil pressure. The aircraft returned to SEA, where numerous metal shavings were found inside parts of the engine. The aircraft we ferried to MSP two days later for an engine change. The aircraft involved was N614UA, a 757-251B (MSN 20359, LN 163) equipped with JT9D-7F engines. At the time of the incident (or upon landing, I'm not sure which), the airframe had 90,405 hours in service and 19,491 cycles. >There is still no report on the NTSB homepage. Even in 1997, not being on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On the web or otherwise, the NTSB doesn't investigate every single incident within its jurisdiction, just those that are unusual or which involve significant damage or injury. An in-flight engine shutdown is not such an event. (I was on a 747-400 that had an IFSD on Februay 18, 1994. That event is not listed on the NTSB web site, either, but I can assure you that it did indeed happen.) >I think your cousin has quite a good imagination. :-) Only in believing that *two* engines were shut down. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:51 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: possible new engine for the B777-200X References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>With the new CLK airport, HKG should not be overlooked (but then >>again, DL did not make it the first time). > >I thought a big part of DL's problem was that the MD-11 couldn't >really fly LAX-HKG with a reasonably full load, at least not >consistently. This has been discussed before. I personally don't think the range of the MD-11 is a significant factor. I was told that even some of Singapore Airlines' SFO-HKG B747 flights sometimes had to be diverted to Taiwan or Japan. My understanding is DL's yields on the route was very poor. DL had trouble marketing its product in the region. >Also, I don't think DL flew beyond HKG, whereas UA >continues on to at least SIN and DEL. This is true. HKG is a minor Asian hub for UA with at least seven daily departures. (NW only has ten or eleven *weekly* departures from HKG.) However, I would think, with proper marketing, the HKG market itself is big enough without any fifth-freedom traffic. Were I a decision maker for an airline, HKG would be my first choice for trans-Pacific service outside Japan. Although, SEL is another good alternative, both Korean Air and Asiana have sizable trans-Pacific network. From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:51 From: "jla" Subject: Re: possible new engine for the B777-200X References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >From what has been said, AA is not happy with the MD-11 and its' performance. They would love to replace it with the 777-200X. It would give them similar capacity and better performance for long-range flights, like their DFW-NRT. It would also give them the aircraft for future expansion on other long-range routes requiring the performance and range of the 777-200X. AA is still trying hard to get more Trans-Pac service. -- jla From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:51 From: "jla" Subject: Re: possible new engine for the B777-200X References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM AA has had in interest in Asia for a long time. True, their interest has been centered on Japan, to be more specific, Tokyo/NRT, but then again, any carrier with interest in Asia, must concentrate on Tokyo. That is where the majority of the money and traffic are. Hong Kong is also a very lucrative business market. As the two centers of Asian finance, TYO and HKG are big money makers. As for other Asian destinations, such as Bangkok, Manila, etc., these are indeed lower-yield, leisure markets mainly, but there are exceptions. PEK/Beijing and SHA/Shanghai are very well served from TYO, as there is a lot of high-yield business traffic in these markets. The problem is UA and NW already have footholds at NRT (an already over-crowded airport) and the Japanese are still fighting to hold back the U.S. carriers from expanding or adding new service, especially with the extensive and lucrative fifth-freedom rights enjoyed by the U.S. carriers. Many of AA's attempts at expanding in the Asian markets have been denied, in favor of other carriers who would more competetively serve the routes, such as ORD-NRT, a hard-fought battle, eventually lost to UA. However, in all fairness, UA purchased the PA Pacific routes and concentrated their efforts there while AA and other U.S. carriers pointed their strategies across the Atlantic. When UA finally decided to make its' Atlantic move, it was only through the purchase of PA's London/LHR routes that it finally made it. Many of UA's attempts to expand in Europe were met with the same response as AA's to expand in Asia--better served by another carrier. DL did not have the feed or market presence to make HKG worthwhile, not to mention the poorer performance of the MD-11 as compared to the 747-400 flown by UA and CX. And AA knows it does not have enough market presence to warrant an aircraft the size of the 747-400, either. Hence, the 777 would be a great aircraft in terms of performance and capacity. It has been published that AA is not overly happy with the performance of the MD-11, either. I believe it was stated that, with the recent Boeing deal, they would phase out the MD-11 and replace them with the 777. And as for Viet Nam, DL/UA/NW have all entered applications to serve Hanoi. This should be another very lucrative, money-making market as well, as Viet Nam re-enters the world economy. -- jla From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:52 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: possible new engine for the B777-200X References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >When UA finally decided to make its' Atlantic move, it was only >through the purchase of PA's London/LHR routes that it finally >made it. That's a popular, though incorrect, opinion. Before UA started flying into Heathrow in April 1991, they had at least three trans-Atlantic flights each way -- 106/105 ORD-CDG, 128/129 ORD-FRA, 130/131 IAD-FRA (east/west). Both FRA routes started May 15, 1990 eastbound, with the first westbound service the next day, then ORD-CDG started on August 1. (ORD-FRA initially was flight 126; the others started with the numbers they had at the start of service to LHR.) All used 767-222(ER)s. While not a very dramatic start, UA was in Europe nearly a year before starting to fly the LHR bought from Pan Am. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:52 From: "Philip Morten" Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM UK Laboratories, Hursley Park, England. Henry Law wrote: > There's a photograph in today's Independent newspaper in the UK of BA > managers, supposedly at RAF Wroughton, learning the rudiments of baggage > handling and towing aircraft in preparation for a forthcoming strike. > And what are they practicing on? A Trident 3, G-AWZM! It's in what > looks to have been BA livery, not BEA. > > But why would an RAF base have a Trident? They are favourites at > airports for fire training, but surely military fire crews don't need to > practice fighting fires on airliners ... Wroughton is the home of the Science Museum's reserve collection, or part of it at least. They have a Trident there which is on loan from British Airways who still use it for ground handling training. RAF Wroughton is a hospital adjacent to the airfield site ( It may be closed now) and the airfield itself used to be shared between the Science Museum and a RNAY (which I believe is also now closed). Philip Morten From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:52 From: Graham Glen Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ain't nobody here but us chickens In article , Henry Law writes >There's a photograph in today's Independent newspaper in the UK of BA >managers, supposedly at RAF Wroughton, learning the rudiments of baggage >handling and towing aircraft in preparation for a forthcoming strike. >And what are they practicing on? A Trident 3, G-AWZM! It's in what >looks to have been BA livery, not BEA. I think that it was very early BA livery (where it just had "British" along the upper half of the fuselage). >But why would an RAF base have a Trident? They are favourites at >airports for fire training, but surely military fire crews don't need to >practice fighting fires on airliners ... The only vaguely military activity at RAF Wroughton is the Princess Alexandra's Hospital (which I think is outside of the perimeter of the airfield). The RAF base is run by the Science Museum who use it for storage of large exhibits that they don't have space for in London, plus one large building for restoration work. The Trident is there along with several other commercial aircraft (it used to be parked next to an ex-Dan Air Comet 4 inside one of the hangers). The oldest commercial aircraft that I remember seeing their is a Boeing 247. It's well worth a visit on one of its periodic open days. Regards Graham -- Graham Glen graham@irving.demon.co.uk ".. and it always was possible to measure the distance between so-called management and the so-called creative by the time it took for a memo to go in one direction and a half-brick to come back in the other." Dennis Potter From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:52 From: "john r." Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Henry Law writes >There's a photograph in today's Independent newspaper in the UK of BA >managers, supposedly at RAF Wroughton, learning the rudiments of baggage >handling and towing aircraft in preparation for a forthcoming strike. >And what are they practicing on? A Trident 3, G-AWZM! It's in what >looks to have been BA livery, not BEA. > >But why would an RAF base have a Trident? They are favourites at >airports for fire training, but surely military fire crews don't need to >practice fighting fires on airliners ... I think Wroughton is a Science Museum annex, bits that wont fit in Kensington go there. They have a good open day once a year. There is also a a Boeing 247 and a Connie amongst others. The most amazing mechanical contraption I saw there is a pea picking machine. Cosford, west of Brum has some BA aircraft, including some I have worked on. -- john r. From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:52 From: Kees de Lezenne Coulande Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Henry Law wrote: >There's a photograph in today's Independent newspaper in the UK of BA >managers, supposedly at RAF Wroughton, learning the rudiments of baggage >handling and towing aircraft in preparation for a forthcoming strike. >And what are they practicing on? A Trident 3, G-AWZM! It's in what >looks to have been BA livery, not BEA. > >But why would an RAF base have a Trident? They are favourites at >airports for fire training, but surely military fire crews don't need to >practice fighting fires on airliners ... Wroughton is nowadays mainly a storage site for the Science Museum which has assembled a nice collection of airliners. Trident 3B G-AWZM arrived at Wroughton on 28 February 1986. As far as I know, Wroughton is not open to the public, apart from the Open Days organised by the Science Museum once or twice a year. Maybe this explains why BA prefers this site over Duxford, where there is an even larger collection of airliners. Kees de Lezenne Coulander -- C.M. de Lezenne Coulander Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B.V. Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands Tel: +31(20)6536008 Fax: +31(20)6535995 From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:52 From: Paul Michaels (Paul Michaels) Subject: Re: HS Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Celtic International Ltd Reply-To: >But why would an RAF base have a Trident? They are favourites at >airports for fire training, but surely military fire crews don't need to >practice fighting fires on airliners ... Wroughton is the home of the National Museum of Science and Industry. Were the BA managers exhibits or visitors? -- Paul Michaels, Aberdaugleddau (Milford Haven), Wales From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:52 From: Antoin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dalt=FAn?= Subject: Re: HS Trident...VC-10 and BOAC References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:27 08/07/97, jla wrote: >This is true of most airliners built in the U.K. The VC-10 was the >ultimate in poor judgement by a manufacturer and abuse by the intended >carrier. The VC10 was also a victim of Rolls-Royce. The Conway was a good civil engine when it came out first on the B707-400 and on a small number of DC-8s. In fact, it was the first commercial turbofan. However, the by-pass ratio was low and Pratt & Whitney soon came out came out with the higher by-pass ratio JT3D which was also very reliable for its time. Rolls-Royce never responded and even BOAC switched to the JT3D for later B707s. Vickers did not respond either. Antoin Daltun From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:53 From: "john r." Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , k_ish writes >Another wierdness of the Trident was the nose gear arrangement (IMHO >ingenious as well). > >The nose gear retracted sideways, as I recall it swung to the left. The >gear leg was offset to the (right?) of the fuselage centerline. The tale was that they used an offset nose gear to prevent the runway center lights causing bumping because the autoland was so good. This may not be true ! -- john r. From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:53 From: Kees de Lezenne Coulande Subject: Re: HS Trident/More weirdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote in response to a previous message regarding the HS Trident: >>The other strange thing about the nose gear was it had four tires on a >>single axle. I'm guessing that the narrow gear well limited the tire >>diameter, so 4 tires were required. > >But wouldn't that make the axle longer? I would have thought that >would be a more critical dimension, since it would have to fit between >the cabin floor and the bottom of the fuselage. (I had never noticed >this peculiarity of the Trident before.) Maybe that's why it's not true. There is some confusion here between the nose and the main undercarriage. Look at any picture of the Trident with the undercarriage down. The nose gear has two wheels (one on each side of the strut). The main gear, however, has four wheels on each strut and all on the same axle (two on each side of the strut). Kees de Lezenne Coulander -- C.M. de Lezenne Coulander Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B.V. Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:53 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia >>The other strange thing about the nose gear was it had four tires on a >>single axle. I'm guessing that the narrow gear well limited the tire >>diameter, so 4 tires were required. > >But wouldn't that make the axle longer? I would have thought that >would be a more critical dimension, since it would have to fit between >the cabin floor and the bottom of the fuselage. (I had never noticed >this peculiarity of the Trident before.) I am looking at a picture of a Trident 1, and it definately only has 2 wheels on the nose gear, is offset to the left and has a large space to retract to the right - and each of the main gear has 4 wheels mounted on a single axle. It still looks a little wierd. Regards, -- Simon Craig --- If it's not Boeing, then I'm not going! From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:53 From: air-admin@chicago.com Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In article , Fran=E7ois Airault wrote: >Could someone explain why the B767 gear is tilted the "wrong" way, i.e. >front wheels down, instead of the seemingly more natural rear wheels >down design like the 747, 777 or A340 ? The gear tilt "toe down" in order to stow more efficiently. This allows the main gear well to be shorter, making the cargo holds longer. This is goodness since longer cargo holds carry more revenue stuff. A small side benefit is that a shorter gear well makes the airplane slightly lighter and stiffer. >Also, what kind of weight is required to force the rear wheels down >after touchdown ? At low weights, the aircraft has a tendency to >"tiptoe" after landing. I think the A340 needs around 50 tons on the >mains to fully settle down. I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Can't help you. :-) -- (Author's name withheld by request) From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.ifr,eunet.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:53 From: Riccardo Romagnoli Subject: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: Centro Servizi Interbusiness Living in the vicinity of one airport (Forli'/LIPK), I have noticed that ALL Russians charters (TUPOLEV/ANTONOV etc.) ALWAYS made VISUAL approach and landings (even if the ruanway is ILS CAT2 equipped). Anyone know why? Is maybe because usually aiports in Russia are not equipped with ILS? or maybe because aircraft are not equipped? (cannot believe) or broken? or simply because pilots don't feel the need, if visibility is good enough.? Awaiting your comments -- Riccardo Romagnoli I-47100 Forli'/Emilia-Romagna/Food Valley/ITALY Pager:DTMF PHONES=3D+39/16888(hear msg.and BEEP then 5130274*YOUR TEL.No.* where*=3Dasterisk key | help visit http://www.tim.it/tldrin_eg/tlde03.html From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:53 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Identifying Boeing 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa I often stay in a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota, where I am under one of the approach paths to Twin Cities International Airport. Does any airline operate the Boeing 777 out of the twin cities? How can one distinguish a Boeing 777 from the many other twin engine airliners, seeing it in flight without any direct size comparison? I suppose I could make a set of World War Two style flash cards with aircraft silhouettes. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:53 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: FMC Nav Data Base Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Q: Has anyone managed to decode the file format used in the Smith and/or Honeywell Flight Management Computer Systems on the B-737 and B-767? TheFNG From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:54 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Stephen Westin wrote: > Well, the stillborn SST was designated "2707", so that points out a > possible compatible upgrade path:). I wonder what happened to the mock up of the 2707. Does anyone know if it still exists? Would make a great museum exhibit. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:54 From: jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam]> Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam] there are a lot of mention of a 4 digit name for a subsequent generation Boeing aircraft. How would that bode with airline reservatio systems which typically use 3 characters to identify equipment used ? While I am at it, how will the CRSs differentiate between a 777-200 and a 777-200 IGW ????? From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:54 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Trevor Fenn wrote: > > 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. > > reserved series of numbers??? with whom? Well I don't know what the situation is in the US, but in Europe you can reserve a certain number configuration for a given product. Just as example when Porsche came out with the 911 it was called 901. They were forced by Peugeot to change the name from 901 to 911 since Peugeot had reserved for their cars the numbers with a 0 in the middle (205, 605 ...). > Isn't that the whole reason that Intel came out with pentiums? Another reason was the increased performance :-) ____________________________________________________________ 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 Jul 13 01:25:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:54 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Joey The Great wrote: > You know what? I was sitting next to a Boeing guy on a Midway flight about > a week ago, and I asked him the same question. He said that Boeing's pretty > much not going to make any new airframes, but rather keep modifying the > existing ones. So, the answer would probably be "737-2000." Airbus introduced the 4digit series already with the (dead born ??) A340-8000. _____________________________________________________________ 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 Jul 13 01:25:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:54 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Please remove NOSPAM to respond. Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com air-admin@chicago.com wrote: > > [Moderator's note: Poster's name withheld at the request of the poster.] > >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? > > According to local legend, the podded engine concept (like the yaw damper) > was explored and implemented on the B-47 first, and therefore ineligible > for a civil patent. Also, it was "prior art" (already been thought of). The podded engine concept, and "stream tube" nacelle was used in a WWII German jet figher, the ME-262. If you see a 3-view, photo, or actual ME-262 (only two in existence at museums in Germany and Chino, California) you will see striking resemblances to the 737! When Germany surrendered, the Allies sent engineers into Germany to sieze and review technical files. I recall skimming a book about Boeing, and it had reprints of letters and notes sent back to Seattle showing German design concepts they had uncovered while going through files. Among these were sketches of swept wing aircraft with underwing nacelles. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:54 From: Peter Coe Subject: Re: B767 design fault (feature?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Speaking for myself.org. Reply-To: Peter Coe hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) writes: > >>>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 ... > >>>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!) >I would not consider this subject to be named a B767 design fault. >Passenger seats are a decision made by the airline and little >to do with Boeing. Several years ago I spent a week with Boeing >Customer Engineering in Renton, WA. At that time I was told by >the Manager of Customer Engineering that Boeing does not purchase >the seats that they use in the aircraft. Each airline is responsible >for the purchase and delivery of the seats to the final production line. Don't know if it is the case now but when my father represented BA at Lockheed for the purchase of the Tristars, the planes were not in general delivered with seats. BA's planes used American built First class seats, and those were fitted. The economy seats (no business class seats then) were made in Britain, and were fitted after the plane was delivered back to the UK. My father was also responsible for the Gulf Air planes, and those were delivered with a full complement of seats. By the way, an aircraft cabin looks much bigger when it hasn't got any seats in it. I flew from Palmdale to London on a Tristar 500 delivery flight with only 20 or so seats on board. The rear cabin seemed enourmous. From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:54 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B767 design fault (feature?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Don't know if it is the case now but when my father represented BA at >Lockheed for the purchase of the Tristars, the planes were not in general >delivered with seats. BA's planes used American built First class seats, and >those were fitted. The economy seats (no business class seats then) were >made in Britain, and were fitted after the plane was delivered back to >the UK. I'm surprised that it would be cost-effective to do it that way. One of the inefficiencies in the politically-drive production arrangements Airbus uses is that their final assembly is at Toulouse (except for the A319 and A321, which are built in Hamburg). The "green" planes are then flown to Germany for painting and interior outfitting. The problem with this is that the engines -- very expensive items! -- are necessarily mounted to the airframe several weeks earlier in the production process than for a Boeing or McDonnell Douglas airliner. On the 737 lines, the interior is done before the engines are hung at the very last station before being pushed out the door. This might seem like an inconsequential detail, but the larger engines are worth ~$10 million or more apiece. If one manufacturer needs the engines two weeks earlier in the production cycle than another, then one way or another that manufacturer is going to pay extra interet as a result. Two weeks' interest at prime rate (8.5%) on $20 million is about $65,000. Similarly, if it takes a week to outfit the interiors, BA is paying a week's interest on an aircraft which is not producing revenue. If they let Boeing install the seats, they wouldn't incur that cost. (Perhaps Boeing's charge for seat installation, or the shipping cost for seats made in Europe, outweighs this cost.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:55 From: k_ish Subject: Re: B767 design fault (feature?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Please remove NOSPAM to respond. Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Kim Hackett 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 ... > >>>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!) > I would not consider this subject to be named a B767 design fault. > Passenger seats are a decision made by the airline and little > to do with Boeing. Several years ago I spent a week with Boeing > Customer Engineering in Renton, WA. At that time I was told by > the Manager of Customer Engineering that Boeing does not purchase > the seats that they use in the aircraft. Each airline is responsible > for the purchase and delivery of the seats to the final production line. > In the early '80s, Boeing was finding that it was spending much in > resources to expedite the delivery of seats that had been ordered > by various airlines for their aircraft. The seats were not being > delivered in time to make aircraft delivery schedults. > Boeing was threatening to finish the aircraft without the seats > and park them on the ramp until the seats were delivered. There are 3 ways a piece of equipment can get on a Boeing aircraft. The first is Seller-Furnished Equipment (SFE) where Boeing provides the equipment on a list of standard options. This would include things like the 2 or 3 door option on 757s, engine types, etc. The second is Buyer-Furnished Equipment (BFE). Boeing issues generic specifications for seats, galleys, lavs, some avionics, etc. As long as the item is approved by Boeing, the airline can purchase the items, deliver it to the Boeing BFE warehouse by a production due date, and it will be installed. The last way is Post Delvery Modification (PDM). Boeing could object to a modification, but ultimately the aircraft is owned by the airline (or a bank) and as long as the governmental agencies (such as FAA) approve the mod, it is theoretically out of Boeing's authority. In reality, most airlines obtain an NTO (No Technical Objection) letter from Boeing just to be sure. PDMs occur for many reasons- the airline changed their mind too late for BFE/SFE installation at the factory, the airline can do the installation cheaper than Boeing, the piece of equipment is wanted by the airline but does not meet Boeing specifications, the equipment meets foreign but not FAA standards, etc. A common misconception is that seats are designed by the manufacturer. Seats are BFE, and their comfort and placement in the cabin is up to each airline within certain limits. So if a seat is hard on your back, and cramped, blame the airline, not Boeing/Airbus/MD. (The BFE/SFE terminology is specific to Boeing, but the idea is the same at other manufacturers). Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.ifr Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:56 From: bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu Subject: UCLA short course on CNS/ATM Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Los Angeles On September 22-25, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Satellite-Based Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance for Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM)", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Mr. Cary R. Spitzer, MS, President, AvioniCon, Inc.; Mr. Wayne Aleshire, Captain, United Airlines; Mr. Michael J. Morgan, Honeywell; and Mr. Roy T. Oishi, ARINC, Inc. After a decade of work by the Future Air Navigation Systems committees of the United Nations-affiliated International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the aviation industry is implementing satellite-based communications, navigation, and surveillance for air traffic management (CNS/ATM) on a global basis. CNS/ATM promises substantial increases in airspace system capacity and benefits to both aircraft operators and air traffic services providers. This course begins with a review of avionics concepts to ensure a solid foundation for subsequent material. The rest of the course traces the development of the CNS/ATM concept, introduces its underlying principles, and presents each of the three cornerstone technologies--communications, navigation, and surveillance--from an airborne perspective. These technologies are discussed in detail by experts who contributed to the design and development of the avionics intended to reap CNS/ATM benefits which are now being installed on many aircraft. The course concludes with a summary of real-world experience by a major airline that has already equipped some of its fleet with first-generation CNS/ATM systems. This course is intended as an introduction to CNS/ATM. The level of detail presented makes the course suitable for a broad range of career backgrounds including technology (both air- and ground-based aviation systems), business development, and technical management. The course fee is $1395, which includes extensive course materials. These notes are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:56 From: "C.P." Subject: Re: A320 Cabin Wall markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: papaya@worldnet.att.net Ken Ishiguro wrote: > 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. They are to show the location of the wing leading edges, so they can be checked for ice (I'm assuming for when it is dark outside). UA's A-320s have the same markings. Seems pointless to me, because if you can't see where the wings are, how are you going to see the ice? From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:56 From: "Lee Tze Yen, Bob" Subject: Why no wingtips for B777??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I've always been pondering over this question: Why are winglets not used on the newer Boeing aircraft, for example the B777, and the originally proposed B747-500X/600X??? If I'm not wrong, these winglets help improve the fuel efficiencies of the B747-400. And why are winglets used on the latest B767-400ERX???? In contrast, winglets are used on all the new Airbus models, especially the A330/A340 variants. Can anyone enlighten me??? Lee Tze Yen, Bob " Friendship is so valuable it cannot be sold For it is worth more than a mountain just made of gold........" From kls Sun Jul 13 01:25:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:56 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Why are winglets not used on the newer Boeing aircraft, for example the >B777, and the originally proposed B747-500X/600X??? This has been discussed *many* times here -- see the newsgroup archives at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html for those previous discussions. Bottom line: for a new design (not modifying an old one), Boeing feels they can produce a better wing without winglets. (Or wing fences, as Airbus calls them.) >And why are winglets used on the latest B767-400ERX???? This is where it gets interesting. The latest iteration of the design being considered (p. 34, AW&ST, June 30, 1997) does NOT have winglets. Quoting from Aviation Week: The highly-swept, 8 ft. wing extensions save over a ton of weight and are substantially less complex to manufacture and maintain than the originally proposed 8 ft. canted winglets, Boeing said. The patent-pending, in-wingplane design also reduces the planned 767-400ER wingspan to 170 ft. from 181 ft., with no loss in overall aircraft performance, according to John Quinlivan, 767-400ER program manager. >From the photograph (of a 3.7% scale wind-tunnel model), it looks like the line of the trailing edge is straight all the way to the wingtip, but the leading edge sweep-back increases at a point near the wingtip (presumably 8 ft. inboard, from the text.) BTW, this page is also where the picture of the British Airways 747-400 with a fifth engine in a ferry pod can be found. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:39 From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Jay Biederman (jbb@seanet.com) wrote: : Actually the tires are inflated with nitrogen gas. This is because the : tire pressure stays fairly constant over large variations in : temperature... It's been a long time since I took thermodynamics, but if I recall correctly after all these years, the pressure of any gas will increase linearly with the absolute temperature if confined to a fixed volume. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:40 From: Wolfgang Decker Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Reply-To: wdecker@flash.net 187 wrote: > > Some questions:- > > 2) What is the best EPR number to be attained? Is it the smaller the > number the better or the greater the better? Since EPR=turbine > discharge pressure: compressor inlet pressure. And why? Basically thrust is generated by accelerating mass into the opposite direction you are going. This is, as Ken Ishiguro wrote, like standing on a skateboard and throwing a basketball. Mathematically this looks like F = (m/t) * (v2 - v1) where F is the thrust, (m/t) is the mass of air per time (t) unit, also called mass flow, v2 is the outlet speed and v1 the inlet speed, which is lowest when standing on the ground. The outlet speed of course is determined by the pressure in the nozzle. Now one can see that increasing the thrust is possible either by increasing the mass flow or the speed gradient. Latter was done in the very first time of jet engines, where no bypass was used. Looking at the efficiency coefficient (unfortunately I don't remember the derivation and the formula exactly, but it basically has the form e = v1 / (v2-v1) ), the efficieny of a jet egine is higher, if you maximize the mass flow by minimizing the speed gradient. This is why modern engines have this very high bypass ratio of larger than 6:1. Now, the question which epr is best can't be answered that easy. It is first determined by the engine type, and secondly by the current flight condition, which includes air density (therefor altitude), inlet air temperature and speed of aircraft. I hope, this gives some additional aspects Wolfgang Decker wdecker@flash.net I prefer to fly without engines! From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:40 From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frontier Internet Services On 13 Jul 97 01:25:54 , jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam]> wrote: >While I am at it, how will the CRSs differentiate between a 777-200 and >a 777-200 IGW ????? The CRS won't make a differentiation -- it will be 772 for either the -200 or -200IGW. In any case, it's not at all uncommon to find that airlines don't bother to load the correct equipment codes into the system. -- Roger Chung-Wee Publisher of Caribbean Aviation Newsletter From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:40 From: "jla" Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam]> wrote in article ... > there are a lot of mention of a 4 digit name for a subsequent generation > Boeing aircraft. > > How would that bode with airline reservatio systems which typically use > 3 characters to identify equipment used ? > > While I am at it, how will the CRSs differentiate between a 777-200 and > a 777-200 IGW ????? The CRS doesn't. At least not Apollo. Since the aircraft is identical in configuration, there is no differentiation in code. But as for 4-digit names, there are longer ones, such as the 747 series. Apollo shows 747(-100/-200)/74S (SP)/743 (-300/744 (-400). Similar to 727/737/767 series. Airbus shows as 320/319/340/330 and AB3 (A300); Douglas, Ilyushin, etc., same thing. They find a way. -- jla From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:40 From: Peter Andrews Subject: Re: Aileron control on Airbus References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia As I understand the inboard "All Speed" aileron on the A300 series has a "Droop" function such that when the flaps are extended both inboard ailerons droop to a max 10 degrees. They still move differentially with controll wheel input. From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:40 From: Ian McAndrew Subject: Re: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cumbria, England In article , Riccardo Romagnoli writes >Living in the vicinity of one airport (Forli'/LIPK), I have noticed that >ALL Russians charters (TUPOLEV/ANTONOV etc.) ALWAYS made VISUAL approach >and landings (even if the ruanway is ILS CAT2 equipped). I do not know the answer through any personal means, but some months ago there was a programme on UK television about Russian airlines and flight safety. In that the comment was made that the majority of Russian pilots are ex-military and it is a matter of pride NOT to use the ILS. One scene showing a twin-jet coming in to land tended to prove this - the approach was more reminiscent of a fighter-bomber approach. I would not have liked to be in the back of that plane :-{ -- Ian McAndrew From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:40 From: m@bang.org Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: a2i network kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > According to sources who requested anonymity, NW flight 7 (SEA-NRT) on > Monday, June 16, 1997 suffered an in-flight shutdown of the #3 engine > two hours into the flight, due to lack of oil pressure. The aircraft > returned to SEA, where numerous metal shavings were found inside parts > of the engine. The aircraft we ferried to MSP two days later for an > engine change. > > The aircraft involved was N614UA, a 757-251B (MSN 20359, LN 163) > equipped with JT9D-7F engines. At the time of the incident (or upon > landing, I'm not sure which), the airframe had 90,405 hours in service > and 19,491 cycles. I'm surprised that Karl Swartz would refer to the #3 engine on a 757. I'm further surprised that the moderator didn't catch it. :-) Perhaps that should have been 747-251B. M Carling -- Microsoft Network is prohibited from reproducing this work, in whole or in part. Copyright 1996, M Carling. License is available to Microsoft Network to reproduce this work for $1000. Unauthorized reproduction by Microsoft Network constitutes agreement to these terms. Please report violations to m@bang.org and postmaster@microsoft.com. From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:41 From: rodh@suburbia.com.au (Rod Hibberd) Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Suburbia Public Access Network Marc Schaeffer (marcmsc@geocities.com) wrote: -snip- : I know that Dan Air reduced to idle the two outer engines on their : Comets during cruise. : The same practice applies to the Nimrods which the RAF is still using. : I think that international regulations forbid the 'Dan Air' practice for : commercial aircrafts nowadays, any comments ? I think high ratio by-pass engines are cruised at or close to full power. There is no excess power to shut down. The engines on the Comet (nenes?) do not lose power with height to the same extent as do modern civilian engines. -RodH- From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:41 From: greg20@ix.netcom.com (Greg Rendell) Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In "P. Wezeman" writes: > I often stay in a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota, where I am under >one of the approach paths to Twin Cities International Airport. Does any >airline operate the Boeing 777 out of the twin cities? > How can one distinguish a Boeing 777 from the many other twin engine >airliners, seeing it in flight without any direct size comparison? I >suppose I could make a set of World War Two style flash cards with >aircraft silhouettes. I don't know if any airlines operate the Boeing 777 out of the twin cities, but I can give you some information to help you identify or "spot" it. Check out my website "Greg's Guide to Spotting Common Commercial Aircraft" at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1273/spotting.html for information on spotting common commercial airliners that you are likely to see in the US. Unless BA or UA operates a 777 to the twin cities, it's pretty unlikely that you'd see one there. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong regarding this. Greg Rendell in Aston, PA greg20@ix.netcom.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1273/ From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:41 From: shampoo@ite.net (shampoo) Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In "P. Wezeman" wrote: > I often stay in a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota, where I am under >one of the approach paths to Twin Cities International Airport. Does any >airline operate the Boeing 777 out of the twin cities? > How can one distinguish a Boeing 777 from the many other twin engine >airliners, seeing it in flight without any direct size comparison? I >suppose I could make a set of World War Two style flash cards with >aircraft silhouettes. There is no scheduled 777 service at MSP. However, UA diversions from ORD are not unheard of, including their notable ORDHKG flight. There have been times when a quick drive past MSP will yield five or six UA D10s and a few AA 757s. 100 to 1 ORD was shut down the night before. As for identifying the 777, keep in mind it is very large. Look for 6-wheeled main bogies. If that fails, check out the APU as it flies overhead. Unlike a 757 which has a visible rounded exhaust, the 777 is "tapered" in the rear, similar to an MD80. Good luck. - Shampoo. From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:41 From: jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam]> Subject: Re: A320 Cabin Wall markings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam] C.P. wrote: > They are to show the location of the wing leading edges, so they > can be checked for ice (I'm assuming for when it is dark outside). > UA's A-320s have the same markings. Seems pointless to me, because > if you can't see where the wings are, how are you going to see the ice? Consider a plane full of passengers. Consider that the wing is at an angle to the fuselage. If you choose the wrong window, the angle may not be "right" and you won't see well. This triangle may be a subtle way to let the pilots only disturb one set of passengers and not have to have to disturb many rows to try each window to see which one has the right view. From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:41 From: Jack Cullen Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WOMR-FM, 92.1MHz - OuterMost community Radio in Provincetown, Cape Cod, MA Reply-To: yoda@daigobah.com k_ish wrote: >Also, it was "prior art" ... > If you see a 3-view, photo, or actual ME-262 (only two in > existence at museums in Germany and Chino, California) nb.: The NASM has one (an ME-262), and I believe it's still on display at the Mall building in D.C. -- Jack Cullen West Chatham, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA Please reply to: jcullen "at" capecod "dot" net From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:41 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.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 Followup-To: rec.aviation.military >> If you see a 3-view, photo, or actual ME-262 (only two in >> existence at museums in Germany and Chino, California) >nb.: The NASM has one (an ME-262), and I believe it's still on display >at the Mall building in D.C. My brother and I have been talking about going out to Castle Air Force Base because he wants to see the SR-71 that's out there, so I suggested we go down to Chino to check out the Me-262. He found the following URL which offers a nice summary of the Me-262: http://www.tiac.net/users/srose/luftwafe/me262.html It looks like there are quite a few left. In addition to the ones in Germany and Chino, and the one you mention, the Wright-Patterson Air Force Museum at has one, as do the Johannesburg War Museum in South Africa and the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. Probably others. (This has *really* drifted away from airliners -- followups redirected to rec.aviation.military.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:41 From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Landing speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University On 18 Jun 97 02:36:57 , Peter Coe wrote: >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. You don't mention which model of 737 but if it was a -400 or even -300 it would explain things. The 737-300/400 is development aircraft and as such has grown in weight by several tonnes from the original version yet the wing area has remained unchanged. In contrast, the 777 has built to be developed, yet the 777-200A is the basic version and is over-winged. This means Boeing can stretch it and still retain the same wing (something Airbus cannot with the A330/A340 developments). A good comparison is the given by calculating aircraft wing loadings (MTOW/Wing Area). Boeing 737-400: 690 kg/sqm Boeing 777-200A: 536kg/sqm It is also likely that the 777 was at a relatively low landing weight relative to its max landing weight compared to the 737. At max landing weight the approach speeds are: Boeing 737-400: 138 knots Boeing 777-200: 138 knots These of course are the final approach speeds. The 737-400 does as well as the 777 with a relatively smaller wing because its flaps produce more lift (but are also heavier). It is also possible that ATC asked the 737-400 pilot to speed up the approach. From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:41 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Landing speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Peter Coe wrote: > > 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. > [snip] > So what's the deal? Logic says the bigger they are, the harder > they fall, but apparently this isn't true with aircraft. I'm not a specialist, but the lines which follow might help. Don't forget that bigger aircrafts have a bigger wing surface (m2 or sqft), the phenomena you observed is a relationship between lift produced by the wing and plane weight at landing. Typical landing speeds for jets are 240 km/h (for the DC-9/30) to 270 km/h (for the B747-400). For the B777-200 landing speed is 250 km/h and for the B737-400 it is of 260 km/h. So you are right *in theory* a B737-400 lands faster than an B777-200. This means that stretching further the -400 is not possible, but with the same wing the B777-200 can be stretched. That's exactly what Boeing will do with the B777-300 which will share the wing with the B777-200, and thus have a higher landing speed (~265 km/h). For the A320 and B767 you have the following landing speed : A319 245 km/h, A320 250 km/h, A321 260 km/h B767-200 250 km/h and B767-300 265 km/h. (same wing and weight increases means higher landing speed) These values can be found at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/technic.htm Hope this helps. ----------- 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 Jul 13 19:52:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:42 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Landing speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 18 Jun 1997, Peter Coe wrote: > 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. Other things being equal; if an aircraft were simply to be scaled up and its density were to remain constant, they, as you say, the larger one would have a higher minimum speed. However, in this case, all other things are not equal. Wing area is enlarged roughly in proportion to weight for larger airliners so that wing loading stays about the same, and wing loading rather than weight itself determines minimum flying speed.. A modern long range jetliner like the 777 cruises at up to 45,000 feet to reduce drag, and so is designed with a lower wing loading than a short range plane, and this lower wing loading tends to give lower speeds at low altitude. The 777 also needs a high fuel fraction for long range, and at the end of the flight with the fuel consumed it will have an even lower wing loading. Further, Boeing airliners 757, 767, and 777 are of newer design than the others and use new airfoil sections, what I think are called "supercritical" wings, which give lower drag at cruising speeds than older wings, but also serendipitously are thicker and perform better at low speeds than the very thin wing sections that used to be needed at high subsonic speeds. These wings have far simpler flap systems than needed by the 707, 727, and other older planes, and still fly slower. I do not fly commercially very often, but the difference in landing performance between a Boeing 767, the first time I rode in one, and a 727 was very noticeable. The 767 was much more responsive to gusts and floated in ground effect much longer. The next model of the Boeing 737, now in development, will have a new technology wing which will presumably give it similar landing speed to the other newer jets. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:42 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: differents in DC10-30 and -40 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Hey out there can anyone tell me what the differeents in a DC10-30 and -40, I know the differents in a -10 and -30 is bigger engines,bigger wings and center line gear. Thanks David From kls Sun Jul 13 19:52:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 13 Jul 97 19:52:42 From: "Christian Kuehnke" Subject: Re: B767 design fault (feature?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > This might seem like an inconsequential detail, but the larger engines > are worth ~$10 million or more apiece. If one manufacturer needs the > engines two weeks earlier in the production cycle than another, then > one way or another that manufacturer is going to pay extra interet as > a result. Two weeks' interest at prime rate (8.5%) on $20 million is > about $65,000. On the other hand, this is only the thousand's part of an airliner's price. -- Christian.Kuehnke@Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE | Tel.: +49 441 592 652 (home) | Tel.: +49 441 798 2978 (work) | Fax : +49 441 798 2980 (work) From kls Mon Jul 14 20:26:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:26:57 From: don@toyunix.zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Wolery Reply-To: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > The patent-pending, in-wingplane design also reduces the planned > 767-400ER wingspan to 170 ft. from 181 ft., with no loss in overall > aircraft performance, according to John Quinlivan, 767-400ER > program manager. I don't understand. How can making the wing extensions flat rather than canted _reduce_ the span? -- don From kls Mon Jul 14 20:26:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:26:58 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>The patent-pending, in-wingplane design also reduces the planned >>767-400ER wingspan to 170 ft. from 181 ft., with no loss in overall >>aircraft performance, according to John Quinlivan, 767-400ER >>program manager. >I don't understand. How can making the wing extensions flat rather than >canted _reduce_ the span? If they in-wingplane extensions are more efficient, they could perhaps be smaller and thus end up with less span. But they talked about the 8 ft. wing extensions replacing 8 ft. winglets, so somebody has some numbers mixed up. Boeing has an updated diagram of the 767-400 on their web site -- see http://www.boeing.com/bck_html/family/767/400E/product.html. That page also lists a wingspan of 170'4" versus 156'1" for the current models. So, the wing extensions seem to be a little bit less than 8 ft. each, while the earlier 181' span implies an added 12'6" on each wing. Perhaps the 8' wingtips were in addition to extensions. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jul 14 20:26:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:26:58 From: snorris443@aol.com (Snorris443) Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Technically, I believe it's up to the Captain. Don't have current FARs with me. A FO is not going to get along very well if the Captain is a non-smoker. I have heard reports of F/As reporting smoking on the flight deck if they could smell it in the cabin! Funny story in this regard. Back in 89 when I smoked (i was a 3 pack a day smoker, before I quit!), I was on a DC-10 jumpseat from Hawaii to LAX. It was a nite flight and we were all just shooting the breeze. After about an hour and a half, I went to the lav. When I came back, all 3 on the flight deck were quickly putting out their cigarettes. They were trying to be courteous, because they didn't know I smoked. When I pulled my pack out, everybody had a big laugh.....all of us were having nicotine fits for that first 1 1/2 hours!!! From kls Mon Jul 14 20:26:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:26:58 From: Jacco van Schaik Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NLR National Aerospace Laboratory McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1 wrote: > Marc Schaeffer wrote: > >On the 4 Oct 92, a B747-258F (4X-AXG) from El Al lost two engines over > >Amsterdam during the initial climb phase. The plane crashed. > The El Al flight "lost" 2 engines in that one fell off and knocked off the > other. Rather different from "losing" thrust on two engines which thereafter > remain firmly attached to the wing. Furthermore, the plane could be controlled up to the time when the flaps where deployed. The wing that "lost" the engines was so severely damaged that the flaps didn't deploy, and the resulting flap asymmetry was the final cause of the crash. Or so I understood at the time. Groeten, - Jacco -- | In Real Life: Jacco van Schaik Those who can, do. | Mail me at: jacco at nlr dot nl Those who can't | Spam bait: postmaster@localhost write user requirements.| See also http://www.nlr.nl/NARSIM.html From kls Mon Jul 14 20:26:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:26:59 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM) wrote: [snip] : According to sources who requested anonymity, NW flight 7 (SEA-NRT) on : Monday, June 16, 1997 suffered an in-flight shutdown of the #3 engine : two hours into the flight, due to lack of oil pressure. The aircraft : returned to SEA, where numerous metal shavings were found inside parts : of the engine. The aircraft we ferried to MSP two days later for an : engine change. : The aircraft involved was N614UA, a 757-251B (MSN 20359, LN 163) : equipped with JT9D-7F engines. At the time of the incident (or upon : landing, I'm not sure which), the airframe had 90,405 hours in service : and 19,491 cycles. I think 757 (at least the ones I have been in) have only two engines. It is surprising that a Northwest flight would be in a plane with a UA suffix, which I tend to associate with United Airlines, but I guess there are loans, leases and so on. -- Gerry From kls Mon Jul 14 20:26:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:26:59 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >: According to sources who requested anonymity, NW flight 7 (SEA-NRT) ... >: The aircraft involved was N614UA, a 757-251B (MSN 20359, LN 163) >: equipped with JT9D-7F engines. > I think 757 (at least the ones I have been in) have only two engines. >It is surprising that a Northwest flight would be in a plane with a >UA suffix, which I tend to associate with United Airlines, but I guess >there are loans, leases and so on. Not only do 757s have only two engines, neither of them are JT9Ds. N614UA does have JT9Ds, though not the -7F version, and it's neither a 747 nor a 757 -- it's a 767. Neither it nor a 757 would have the range to fly SEA-NRT, at least not with a useful load. The correct info is that the aircraft involved was N614US, a 747-251B. US as in one of Northwest's common suffixes, and 747 is in the really big plane with the hump on the nose. Too much work, too little sleep. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jul 14 20:26:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:26:59 From: jimcam@arctic.ca Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NTnet News Server On 1997-07-11 marcmsc@geocities.com said: >Karl Swartz wrote: >> The P3 Orion loiters on *two* engines -- they shut down both of >>the outer engines (#1 and #4). The asymmetry of shutting down >>only one engine would require enough rudder to counteract the >>tendency to yaw, which would reduce or elimnate the reduced fuel >>burn (and hence loiter endurance) which is the point of the >>exercise. >I know that Dan Air reduced to idle the two outer engines on their >Comets during cruise. I used to work for an airline that operated Electras. On three engines you lost one quarter of the fuel consumption, but did not lose one quarter of the speed. We didn't follow this practice because the sight of one of the props feathered really made the passengers nervous. ;-) Jim Cameron Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Canada Net-Tamer V 1.08.1 - Test Drive From kls Mon Jul 14 20:26:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:26:59 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com k_ish wrote: > I fly to HKG a lot, and can usually visit the flight deck simply by > asking (foreign airlines). Quite often, one engine on 747-400s is > deliberately throttled back to "flight idle" simply because they don't > need it. Is this allowed by international regulations ? ............................................................ Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft pictures <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Mon Jul 14 20:26:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:26:59 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 747 lands at a wrong airport References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Trevor Fenn wrote: > David Lesher wrote: > > You got it. There are companies that specialize in such. Strip the > > a/c, unloading everything [not just seats, entire interior...] > > and a few minutes of fuel. [Wonder if they could/would pull > > the APU?] > > > > Then... wait for the right weather. Cool enough, enough headwinds, > > clear shot to the bigger field. > > But bear in mind a 747 can get airborne in around 4000 feet if it has to > with a light load, even when operating commercially > > I've seen it many times Correct, one of the takeoffs which surprised me the most was an ANA 747-200 which took off in after 4000 feet. This happened in FRA with only light wind and 20 DegC. Does anybody know the destination of ANA 747's departing Frankfurt at about 15pm on 01 Aug 97? Looking at that takeoff performance the TOW must have been rather low, so where could they have flown ? By the way the picture is available on my website. ............................................................ Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft pictures <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Mon Jul 14 20:26:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:26:59 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Karl Swartz wrote: > In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote: > >V. Venkatesh wrote: > >> 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. > > >Nothing appeared in the news since this didn't happen. > > On what do you base that assertion? Were you on that flight so you > know for a fact that it did not happen? No I wasn't on that flight. My point was that *if* two engines would have failed this would have been reported in the news and/or the web, since this would have been a serious incident. > >There is still no report on the NTSB homepage. > > Even in 1997, not being on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You are right for one in-flight engine shutdown, here we speak of two. > >I think your cousin has quite a good imagination. :-) > > Only in believing that *two* engines were shut down. Let's agree that *one* engine shutdown occured, since this is a *fact*. My point was that this newsgroup should not divert in discussing things which only occured in somebodys imagination. The quality of discussions is too good to publish fairy-tales. If the initial question would have been "what happens if two engines on a 747 fail", I wouldn't have written what I wrote in my previous post. But the initial post was different, stating that "my cousin was on a 747 flight with two engine shutdown". The question isn't bad, it was just the way it was asked which I didn't appreciate. Regards ............................................................ Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft pictures <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Mon Jul 14 20:26:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:26:59 From: don@toyunix.zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Food for Thought References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Wolery Reply-To: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz In article , k_ish wrote: >Also, it was "prior art" (already been thought of). The podded engine >concept, and "stream tube" nacelle was used in a WWII German jet figher, >the ME-262. No, what Boeing discovered (which the Germans hadn't noticed) was that the way the wing and engine nacelles went toward high Mach numbers was largely independent; having the engine slung close into the wing as on the ME-262 loses this independence. The ME-262's engines are there simply because it was a convenient place to hang them, not because of any aerodynamic advantage. The Me-262 wasn't designed for the kind of speeds where the independence mattered. -- don From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:00 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Karl Swartz wrote: > One reference describes this model as having a -10 series fuselage > with the larger -30 wing and -40 engines. It was a special version > for SAS, who bought only ten. I'd be surprised if Republic ever had > any. The -20 had indeed the -10 series fuselage and the larger -30 wing. Engines were PW JT8D-9 and -11. The series -30 and -40 had in addition the more powerful JT8D-15 engines. There were 20 -20's build, all for SAS who wanted a -10 version with better takeoff performance for the small regional airports in Scandinavia. Regards ............................................................ Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my DC9 technical data page <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/tech_sd.htm From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:00 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany On 13 Jul 97 01:25:49 , kls.NOSPAM@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>- what difference between the so called new -500/600 wing and the >>existing -300 wing there will be > >The current wing is designed to accomodate either two relatively large >engines (A330) or four considerably lighter engines (A340-200/300). >The A340-500/600 will have four engines, each larger (and heavier) >than the two on the A330. That added engine weight alone imples some >substantial changes. (The 777 was designed with 100,000+ lbs thrust >engines in mind from the outset.) The A340-600 wing is designated WBI (Wing Box Insert) by DASA. I was told by some DASA tech-staff that considerable area is gained by extending the wing torsion box CHORDWISE, adding a section with a third spar. Though they claim this to be aerodynamically feasible, I'd dare to question the economic viability of the concept. During a colloquium on Adaptive Wing Technology held at TUB recently, a wing study was shown, featuring triple slotted fowler flaps inboards, double-slotted fowler flaps outboards and a single-slotted flaperon supported by no less than four tracks, the latter due to aeroelastic considerations. The concept was said to aim primarily at reducing zero-lift alpha or increasing lift at takeoff with a rotation-angle limited configuration respectivley. This wing study may be closely related to the A340-600 pogram. IMO, AI should should cancel the -600 outright, shelve the A3XX, and rather go for a completely new single-deck widebody with around 450 seats (three-class) to compete with both the 747 and the 777 HGW/ER versions. This would deprieve Boeing of their Jumbo 'cash-cow', and we would most likely see prices soaring up for Boeing's smaller types as a direct result. Burkhard From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:00 From: Alan Wong Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote: > The current wing is designed to accomodate either two relatively large > engines (A330) or four considerably lighter engines (A340-200/300). > The A340-500/600 will have four engines, each larger (and heavier) > than the two on the A330. That added engine weight alone imples some > substantial changes. (The 777 was designed with 100,000+ lbs thrust > engines in mind from the outset.) I find it very surprising that the Trent 500 engines on the proposed A340- 500 and 600 (which develop around 50000lb thrust each) will be heavier than the Trent 700 engines or any of the other engines found on the A330 (which develop around 70000lb thrust). Unless of course you mean the two Trent 500 engines on each wing are together heavier than a single A330 class engine. From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:00 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Karl Swartz wrote: > >- what difference between the so called new -500/600 wing and the > >existing -300 wing there will be > > The current wing is designed to accomodate either two relatively large > engines (A330) or four considerably lighter engines (A340-200/300). > The A340-500/600 will have four engines, each larger (and heavier) > than the two on the A330. NO. The A330 has engines rated from 284 to 316 kN and a fan diameter of 100 in. The Trent 500 data that has been published, states that the thrust will be rated from 249 to 276 kN, however I have no information of the fan diameter. The smallest Trent 700 member, the 768 has 300 kN. The chairmain of RR stated at the Paris Air Show that the Trent 556 and 563 will be developped from the Trent 700 series. From the above mentioned facts I conclude that the Trent 500 will be smaller and lighter than the A330 engines (CFMI CF6-80E1, PW4168 and Trent 768/772.) Regards ............................................................ Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my technical data pages <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/technics.htm From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:00 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> The current wing is designed to accomodate either two relatively large >> engines (A330) or four considerably lighter engines (A340-200/300). >> The A340-500/600 will have four engines, each larger (and heavier) >> than the two on the A330. >From the above mentioned facts I conclude that the Trent 500 will be >smaller and lighter than the A330 engines (CFMI CF6-80E1, PW4168 and >Trent 768/772.) I stand corrected. However, the engine will still be considerably heavier than the CFM56-5C series currently installed on the A340, and two of them will almost certainly weight considerably more than one of the current A330 engines (though not twice). At the very least, the structures for the outer engines (#1 and #4) will need to be strengthened, and at worst, the wing may require significant changes to accomodate the weight of two engines which, in aggregate, weigh considerably more than two CFM56-5C engines or one of the current A330 engines. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:00 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Fran=E7ois Airault wrote: >> Also, what kind of weight is required to force the rear wheels down >> after touchdown ? At low weights, the aircraft has a tendency to >> "tiptoe" after landing. I think the A340 needs around 50 tons on the >> mains to fully settle down. An anonymous correspondant wrote: >I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Can't help you. :-) I assume the original question refers to the pressure required to compress the shock-absorbers and activate the weight-on-wheels (WOW) switches. On modern automated aircraft, these switches need to be activated in order for ground spoilers to deploy and dump lift so that the aircraft stays on the deck. The fact that a) *both* WOW switches had to be activated and b) the oleos were a bit "stiff" and did not compress when the pilots "greased" the 'plane down, were two important factors in the Warsaw accident where an A320 did not "know" it was on the ground until too late, and overshot the runway. What the precise tonnage per gear is required in the case of the B767 and the A340, I'm afraid I don't know. Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:00 From: k_ish Subject: Re: B767 design fault (feature?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Please remove NOSPAM to respond. Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Karl Swartz wrote: > > >Don't know if it is the case now but when my father represented BA at > >Lockheed for the purchase of the Tristars, the planes were not in general > >delivered with seats. BA's planes used American built First class seats, and > >those were fitted. The economy seats (no business class seats then) were > >made in Britain, and were fitted after the plane was delivered back to > >the UK. > > I'm surprised that it would be cost-effective to do it that way. A seat group (1-3 seats) costs from $5000 (US) to $20,000. If you consider shipping, customs duty, sales tax, interest expense etc. it may have easily be more cost-effective to install post-delivery in the UK. It is also possible something about the seats or the cabin arrangement was legal with the CAA (UK) but not with the FAA (USA). Another possibility is that the seats were not ready in time...this happens more often than you might think! > The > problem with this is that the engines -- very expensive items! -- are > necessarily mounted to the airframe several weeks earlier in the > production process than for a Boeing or McDonnell Douglas airliner. > On the 737 lines, the interior is done before the engines are hung at > the very last station before being pushed out the door. Engines are last on the 747 lines as well. To prevent the aircraft from teetering onto its tail, concrete blocks are suspended from the engine pylons. Sort of a strange thing to see. Concrete blocks are undoubtedly cheaper than engines, and also less expensive to repair if a factory floor mishap occurs. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:00 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: B767 design fault (feature?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 13 Jul 97 01:25:54 , kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) caused to appear as if it was written: >>Don't know if it is the case now but when my father represented BA at >>Lockheed for the purchase of the Tristars, the planes were not in general >>delivered with seats. BA's planes used American built First class seats, and >>those were fitted. The economy seats (no business class seats then) were >>made in Britain, and were fitted after the plane was delivered back to >>the UK. [ Snip ] >Similarly, if it takes a week to outfit the interiors, BA is paying >a week's interest on an aircraft which is not producing revenue. If >they let Boeing install the seats, they wouldn't incur that cost. >(Perhaps Boeing's charge for seat installation, or the shipping cost >for seats made in Europe, outweighs this cost.) Well, Boeing would have probably charged a whole lot of cash to install seats in BA's L-1011s! But seriously, this would have been in an era of much more intense political machination, so it is likely that BA purchased the seats in the UK in order to award a contract to a British company, and thereby win brownie points from the government... >Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com Malc. From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:00 From: k_ish Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Please remove NOSPAM to respond. Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Michael Carley wrote: > k_ish writes: > >No, this is simply a "hardpoint" to haul spare engines around. I > >personally have never seen this feature actually used. The engine > > There was a photo in last week's Aviation Week of a BA 747-400 > which had an extra engine attached for delivery to Britain. It > was the most convenient way of getting a spare to BA. Thanks for the update. There has been a worldwide shortage of the RB211 engines used on the 747-400. I heard thirdhand that an unplanned engine inspection/overhaul was mandated by RR. This unplanned event created havoc in the airlines' maintenance schedules which are usually planned a year or more in advance. BA was taking engines off aircraft which were down for maintenance to keep the rest of the fleet flying; originally these aircraft were not scheduled for an engine removal. I understand other operators were similarly affected. About 2 weeks ago, the situation resolved itself. Sounds like the photo you saw was supporting the spare engine effort. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:01 From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University On 13 Jul 97 01:25:50 , Jay Biederman wrote: >Actually the tires are inflated with nitrogen gas. This is because the >tire pressure stays fairly constant over large variations in >temperature. Also, if I remember correctly, the tires are inflated to >around 140 PSI. For the 747-400 certified upto 394625kg the pressure is 205psi. The MTOW has since been increased to 396893kg - not sure if this required a increase in tyre pressure. The heighest tyre pressures were on the B747-100B at 226psi. From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:01 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 13 Jul 97 01:25:50 , Jay Biederman caused to appear as if it was written: >Actually the tires are inflated with nitrogen gas. This is because the >tire pressure stays fairly constant over large variations in >temperature. Also, if I remember correctly, the tires are inflated to >around 140 PSI. Hmm... Given that air is 80% nitrogen, I question the assertion that nitrogen maintains a similar volume over wide temperature variations (read: it doesn't). >Jay Biederman Malc. From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:01 From: "Lucien" Subject: Re: EU Objects to Boeing Merger References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses Robert Nielsen wrote in article ... >it is prudent to recall the old adage, 'Be careful what you wish for; >your wish might be granted.' Hahaha, I also have an old adage, 'be careful with what you say, unless you know what you are talking about...' Here are just some random thoughts I had when reading the previous article. It is imho clear that: 1)The EU is protecting airbus 2)The EU wants a free, but equal/balanced market with the US (and v.v.) 3)The interest of the US-authorities and the EU-authorities are quite different 4)That the previous things said, are conflicting I am sure that MDD (or at least parts of it) are able to go on alone, and if they don't, other companies will fill up the holes in the market. (It all happened to Fokker) Don't you think that the merge of BAC and MDD would create a _very_ big company? With a product-range for the whole military and civil market. I think it is very difficult to compete with such a economically powerful company. It would leave Airbus far behind, and minimize the possibility that it ever would become (finally) profittable as well. (And that's what we all want isn't it :-) And then your scaring example of Boeing suspending sales to the EU. This is another good reason to keep Airbus healthy, and prevent everybody from becoming 100% dependent from Boeing. (If somebody like the previous writer becomes president of the US or president of Boeing, many countries may need an alternative for Boeing :-) Airbus technically inferiour? As long as they meet the high, strict, superior demands of the FAA, you really don't need to worry. They are safe for the pax, appearently attractive for the airliners, I don't see any problems. I personally like Fokker a lot. >These are some of the people who gave the world the FASTEST unsaleable >airplane. I thought they sold 10 of them to independent airliners like AF and your >superb example Best wishes from sunny Hoofddorp, From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:01 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Aircraft Evacuation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Does the FAA require airlines to demonstrate evacuation of airliners in every seating configuration that the airline uses? In other words, if an airliner wanted to squeeze more seats into an airliner than anyone had ever used before, would they have to demonstrate that the new configuration would still meet standards for evacuation time with a random half of the exits blocked, X% seniors, dummy infants and all the other test requirements? Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:01 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams jfmezei wrote: > > there are a lot of mention of a 4 digit name for a subsequent generation > Boeing aircraft. > > How would that bode with airline reservatio systems which typically use > 3 characters to identify equipment used ? > > While I am at it, how will the CRSs differentiate between a 777-200 and > a 777-200 IGW ????? >From the standpoint of the passenger, there is no material difference between the two, so why would they need to be differentiated? CRSs don't differentiate between the MTOW versions of the 747-400, why should they do it for the 777? Mike Lechnar From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:01 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 777, 787, 797 and next ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote: > >Airbus introduced the 4digit series already with the (dead born ??) >A340-8000. I believe the Sultan of Brunei has one or two A340-8000 on order. The A340-500 is probably the successor of the -8000. From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:01 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: possible new engine for the B777-200X References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , jla wrote: >AA has had in interest in Asia for a long time. True, their interest has >been centered on Japan, to be more specific, Tokyo/NRT, but then again, any >carrier with interest in Asia, must concentrate on Tokyo. That is where >the majority of the money and traffic are. Hong Kong is also a very >lucrative business market. As the two centers of Asian finance, TYO and >HKG are big money makers. You have left out SEL and TPE. For some reasons, US carriers can't seem to compete effectively with the local airlines (namely, KE, OZ, CI, and BR), these routes are dominated by non-US airlines. KE and OZ combined has more than ten daily widebody flights between Korea and US. Six-freedom traffic is probably very sizable on KE and OZ, especially from secondary Japanese destinations where it's more convenient to connect through SEL than NRT. >As for other Asian destinations, such as Bangkok, Manila, etc., these are >indeed lower-yield, leisure markets mainly, but there are exceptions. If you think Vietnam can be lucrative, then BKK should be, too. Thailand has a very robust economy. I would think there are a lot of business travellers between the US and Thailand. Currently, only NW and TG have same-plane service between the two countries. >PEK/Beijing and SHA/Shanghai are very well served from TYO, as there is a >lot of high-yield business traffic in these markets. Perhaps, that's why NW's DTW-PEK service is quite successful and NW will increase the frequency early next year. >The problem is UA and NW already have footholds at NRT (an already >over-crowded airport) and the Japanese are still fighting to hold back the >U.S. carriers from expanding or adding new service, I have said so many times in this forum that the US-Japan bilateral is so one sided, you can't really blame the Japanese for preventing the competition from becoming even more unbalanced. From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:01 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: possible new engine for the B777-200X References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , jla wrote: >>From what has been said, AA is not happy with the MD-11 and its' >performance. They would love to replace it with the 777-200X. It would >give them similar capacity and better performance for long-range flights, >like their DFW-NRT. It would also give them the aircraft for future >expansion on other long-range routes requiring the performance and range of >the 777-200X. AA is still trying hard to get more Trans-Pac service. AA ordered seven -200IGW to replace the MD-11 on routes like DFW-NRT. The -200X, if AA does order it, will be used on non-Japanese routes. From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:01 From: Chuck Till Subject: Re: Landing speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises P. Wezeman wrote: > ... The 767 was much more responsive to gusts and > floated in ground effect much longer... IIRC, when the 767 and 757 were first placed into service, there was immediate feedback that they were more sensitive to turbulence than older aircraft. IIRC further, there was a Wall Street Journal article about Delta's complaints to Boeing about this, presumably asking for control mods. Does anyone know more on this point? From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:02 From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: HS Trident...VC-10 and BOAC References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Loughborough University On 13 Jul 97 01:25:52 , Antoin Daltzn wrote: >The VC10 was also a victim of Rolls-Royce. The Conway was a good civil >engine when it came out first on the B707-400 and on a small number of >DC-8s. In fact, it was the first commercial turbofan. However, the >by-pass ratio was low and Pratt & Whitney soon came out came out with the >higher by-pass ratio JT3D which was also very reliable for its time. >Rolls-Royce never responded and even BOAC switched to the JT3D for later >B707s. Vickers did not respond either. The bypass ratio of the Conway was 0.6 and for many years RR believed this to be a sort of optimum value. Higher bypass ratio values were thought to increase nacelle drag (larger diameter engine) and also increase engine mass (larger fan), beyond that of the fuel savings from a more efficient engine. From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:02 From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: HS Trident/More weirdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University On 13 Jul 97 01:25:53 , Kees de Lezenne Coulande > Maybe that's why it's not true. There is some confusion here between >the nose and the main undercarriage. Look at any picture of the Trident >with the undercarriage down. The nose gear has two wheels (one on each side >of the strut). The main gear, however, has four wheels on each strut and >all on the same axle (two on each side of the strut). The description above is the correct layout of the undercarriage on a Trident. The undercarriage is also fairly unique in that to stow the 4 wheels on a single main gear axle, the leg shortens and rotates through 90deg. so that the wheels occupy the minimum space possible. Of course the extra complexity added weight to the design - hence this approach hasn't been used since on civil aircraft. From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:02 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Metro/JATO Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl A few years ago, I saw a Swearingin Metro with a tubluar member at the tail apex. I asked about this, and was told that it was for a JATO engine. 1. Is this true 2. If true, has anyone here ridden a Metro during a JATO take off? Could they share their experience? From kls Mon Jul 14 20:27:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 14 Jul 97 20:27:02 From: markemail@pobox.com (Mark Gitlitz) Subject: Re: Overheard on channel 9 ... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: markemail@pobox.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? I was just talkiking about this with an AA Left Seat that was sitting next to me on a DFW-BOS flight. At that altitude at least one of the flight deck crew must be on Oxygen. Apparently, the mask is extremely uncomfortable to wear, so........clearance to this altitude is routinely declined (grin)!!! Mark Gitlitz EMC Corp Hopkinton, MA NOSPAM mode turned to on!! Remove the x in address From news Wed Jul 16 04:05:36 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news.dra.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "jla" Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: UA and Europe Date: 15 Jul 1997 15:57:19 -0400 Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5qgkn8$l7o$7@kragar.kei.com> References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> Karl Swartz wrote in article > That's a popular, though incorrect, opinion. Before UA started flying > into Heathrow in April 1991, they had at least three trans-Atlantic > flights each way -- 106/105 ORD-CDG, 128/129 ORD-FRA, 130/131 IAD-FRA > (east/west). Both FRA routes started May 15, 1990 eastbound, with the > first westbound service the next day, then ORD-CDG started on August 1. > (ORD-FRA initially was flight 126; the others started with the numbers > they had at the start of service to LHR.) All used 767-222(ER)s. > While not a very dramatic start, UA was in Europe nearly a year before > starting to fly the LHR bought from Pan Am. Yes. You are correct. I was aware of the other flights. But they were hardly a great market presence. London/LHR is to Europe what Tokyo/NRT is to Asia. If you don't get service to London, you have limited market presence and traffic. UA was granted the FRA/CDG routes earlier, but it wasn't until they got London, Heathrow specifically, including some limited through-rights and fifth-freedom rights that they really got INTO Europe. As you stated it was not a dramatic start. But it was not until UA started LHR service that they became a true Trans-Atlantic contender. That is what I meant by UA making their move. As a side note to that earlier service, just before UA started CDG service, the French govt. renigged on the authority and was refusing to permit UA to land at CDG, and was going to make them fly to ORY. UA was adamant and stated they would fly to CDG, regardless. The US govt. got involved, and CDG it was. But it was up to the last minute before the French govt. granted the approval. It is also rather ironic that UA purchased the routes from PA, who originally got them years earlier from AOA (American Overseas), a then-subsidiary of American, who later purchased TW's routes to get back in. -- jla From news Wed Jul 16 04:05:37 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.qwikpics.com!news.wizvax.net!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!infeed2.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "jla" Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: possible new engine for the B777-200X Date: 15 Jul 1997 16:01:11 -0400 Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5qgkuf$l7o$11@kragar.kei.com> References: <5ogndh$q37@chronicle.concentric.net> H Andrew Chuang wrote in article ... > In article , jla wrote: > Perhaps, that's why NW's DTW-PEK service is quite successful and NW will > increase the frequency early next year. UA served SHA nonstop from SFO a few years ago (late June through late September), which continued on to PEK, 3X weekly. The service, with adequately full loads, was mostly leisure travel. The high-yield traffic is to/from TYO. Those flights are quite full with business travelers. You also mentioned SEL/TPE. While these are served by DL/NW/UA, they are for some reason not as popular with US carriers. UA serviced LAX-SEL some years back, but dropped the service!? And as for BKK, on September 1, I believe, UA will serve BKK direct from LAX with one of its' flights via NRT. The current flight does not make connections westbound and is a LONG layover on the eastbound segment. The big question I have always had is why does UA serve MNL via SEL from SFO. The largest Filipino population outside of MNL is in Los Angeles. Would it not be better served from LAX, possibly via HNL (another large Filipino population)??? It could be a matter of approval, but to my knowledge UA has never applied for it. jla From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:23 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com I just read that NW will also aquire 24 RJ85 seating 69 passengers in a two class layout. They will be operated by Mesaba in addition to the 12 RJ's already ordered. Note that they will seat less passengers than the DC-9-14/15 (8+70). Regards ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:24 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: DC9-15 (was Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , Mike wrote: >NW operates -10, -30, -40, -50 and -80s. I've never heard of a -15 before, >prehaps it is a variant of the -10? Note there are also no -20s. If >Republic did operate them then I can't say where they went. Among the differences between a -10 and a -15 version of the DC9, is, (from what I recall) the additional of leading edge slats to the wing. The DC9-10 and other aircraft without leading edge slats tend to be very sensitive to wing icing (witness the F28 crash at LGA by USAir a few years ago). Leading edge slats help reduce this problem. 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 Mon Jul 28 01:13:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:24 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "P. Wezeman" , Sun Jul 13 13:43:46 1997, asks: > How can one distinguish a Boeing 777 from the many other twin engine > airliners, seeing it in flight without any direct size comparison? It's got bloody big engines! Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:24 From: mcason@msmail4.HAC.COM (Mike Cason) Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hughes Aircraft Company In article , "P. Wezeman" wrote: > How can one distinguish a Boeing 777 from the many other twin engine > airliners, seeing it in flight without any direct size comparison? I > suppose I could make a set of World War Two style flash cards with > aircraft silhouettes. Assuming you're directly under the plane on landing, the main landing gear will have six wheels per trunk rather than the usual four. From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:25 From: snarley@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AlliedSignal Engines, Phoenix, Az shampoo wrote: > As for identifying the 777, keep in mind it is very large. Look > for 6-wheeled main bogies. If that fails, check out the APU as it flies > overhead. Unlike a 757 which has a visible rounded exhaust, the 777 is > "tapered" in the rear, similar to an MD80. Good luck. - Shampoo. Along similar lines, how do you indentify a 767? I'm in Phoenix, and I see lots of 757 land and takeoff at/from Sky Harbor International Airport. I haven't seen any 767s (perhaps couldn't identify them?). From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:25 From: navion4217@aol.com (Navion4217) Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > How can one distinguish a Boeing 777 from the many other twin engine >airliners, seeing it in flight without any direct size comparison? All those twins do look alike; my dad (retired PA/DL capt) used to complain that it was hard to tell if the holding traffic was a B767 or A300 a long ways off or a B737 a short ways off. When I was in Seattle back in 1994-5, we used to see the B777 going in and out of Boeing Field all the time. The feature I noticed most was the dihedral of the wings- the tips seemed to be higher than the top of the fuselage. From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:25 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , "P. Wezeman" writes > I often stay in a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota, where I am under >one of the approach paths to Twin Cities International Airport. Does any >airline operate the Boeing 777 out of the twin cities? > How can one distinguish a Boeing 777 from the many other twin engine >airliners, seeing it in flight without any direct size comparison? I >suppose I could make a set of World War Two style flash cards with >aircraft silhouettes. 1 Its big 2 Squared off tail cone, not rounded like most other a/c. 3 Long thin wings, obvious in flight when you have your eye in. 4 Flight deck windows appear as a small visor like slit. Of course they are as big as any other plane, but see item 1. 5 Its quiet. I work on the ramp at Heathrow and its stange to see one moving under power near silently, if you are in front. GE for better or worse. Cheers, -- _J_O_H_N____R_E_L_P_H____________ john@guava.demon.co.uk Teddington, Middlesex in Cold Old England. From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:25 From: "Paul Stow" Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ROLLS-ROYCE ISSL In "P. Wezeman" writes: > How can one distinguish a Boeing 777 from the many other twin engine >airliners, seeing it in flight without any direct size comparison? I >suppose I could make a set of World War Two style flash cards with >aircraft silhouettes. A B777 has three pairs of wheels on each oleo of the main undercarriage, the nearest looking aeroplane (B767) has on two pairs. Boeing large twins taper at the back and Airbus don't, they are flat on the top all the way to the back. From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:25 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: Aircraft Evacuation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > Does the FAA require airlines to demonstrate evacuation of airliners >in every seating configuration that the airline uses? In other words, if The FAA does not require carriers to demonstrate evacuation with all seat configurations.... From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:25 From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Aircraft Evacuation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University On 14 Jul 97 20:27:01 , "P. Wezeman" wrote: > Does the FAA require airlines to demonstrate evacuation of airliners >in every seating configuration that the airline uses? In other words, if >an airliner wanted to squeeze more seats into an airliner than anyone >had ever used before, would they have to demonstrate that the new >configuration would still meet standards for evacuation time with a >random half of the exits blocked, X% seniors, dummy infants and all >the other test requirements? The answer is no. The aircraft are certificated in a very high density layout. However, the limit is often set on the number of doors present and then confirmed by tests. Examples are the Boeing 777-200, Airbus A330/340 which all have 4 pairs of type A doors. The FAR and JAR allow 110 people per pair for these doors giving an exit limited capacity of 440 people. Currently I don't know of any operator using a layout anywhere near this limit. The stretch 777-300 has a extra set of doors in oen of the plug increasing exit limited capacity to 550. The Boeing 747-400 has 6 pairs of Type A doors giving a theoretical exit limit of 660 people. However, I don't think the 747-400 has ever been certficated to this limit. Charter operators often get very close the the max seating capacities. Typical 757 seating layouts for UK charter operators are 235, the certificated limit is 239. The tests are also done in a very controlled manner now, since a volunteer was paralysed in 1989 whilst participating in an MD-11 certification test. As I understand it the passenger tripped at the top of the slide and descended head first. From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:25 From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Aircraft Evacuation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA On 14 Jul 97 20:27:01 , "P. Wezeman" said: P> Does the FAA require airlines to demonstrate evacuation of P> airliners in every seating configuration that the airline uses? In P> other words, if an airliner wanted to squeeze more seats into an P> airliner than anyone had ever used before, would they have to P> demonstrate that the new configuration would still meet standards P> for evacuation time with a random half of the exits blocked, X% P> seniors, dummy infants and all the other test requirements? Yes, if the configuration is markedly different, with more passengers, from those tested previously. I believe that the airline will frequently contract with the airframer to do this testing. The sample population, by the way, has to be representative of the usual mix of passengers for the configuration, so the tight-pack military transport configuration used for the CRAF 747s need only be demonstrated with military personnel, rather than "laps", seniors, etc. (A "lap" is a child of 24 months or less, riding on someone's lap rather than in a seat.) It's not just the FAA, either. British Airways had to demonstrate to the British authority (CAA?) the evacuability of the 747 with the overwing exits blocked when they tried to squeeze in another row of seats. Although this configuration could be evacuated in the required 90 seconds, public and industry outcry stopped it from going into service, as I recall. -- 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 Mon Jul 28 01:13:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:25 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Aircraft Evacuation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , "P. Wezeman" wrote: > Does the FAA require airlines to demonstrate evacuation of airliners >in every seating configuration that the airline uses? In other words, if >an airliner wanted to squeeze more seats into an airliner than anyone >had ever used before, would they have to demonstrate that the new >configuration would still meet standards for evacuation time with a >random half of the exits blocked, X% seniors, dummy infants and all >the other test requirements? The short answer is "yes". This is actually a somewhat contentious issue, as evacuation demonstrations frequently cause injuries among the participants. However, given your above scenario, it would be highly doubtful that a relaxation of this policy would be allowed. 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 Mon Jul 28 01:13:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:25 From: "Richard A. Muirden" Subject: 25 years... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM To our journalist friends, are you lot planning any special issues or comments with the fast approaching 25th anniversary of the first flight of an airbus industrie jet (A300B on 22 Oct 1972). Does anyone know what kinds of things AI might be doing to celebrate? -- Richard Muirden, Senior Unix Systems Administrator Infrastructure Services Branch, RMIT Information Technology Services Likes: Shostakovich (144 CD's), 'planes, sci-fi, cats, cuddling, romance, ... mailto: richard@rmit.EDU.AU http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard "Worlds may change, Galaxies disintergrate, but a Woman always remains a Woman" From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:26 From: "Mark E. Ingram" Subject: Re: Metro/JATO Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 14 Jul 1997, Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > A few years ago, I saw a Swearingin Metro with a tubluar member at > the tail apex. I asked about this, and was told that it was for a JATO > engine. > > 1. Is this true Yes, that is indeed what the tube is there for, but you would have to look pretty close to determine if it actually had the JATO installed. I have flown quite a few Metroliners, and perhaps half a dozen of those had it installed. Their use required special training for everyone involved (ground and maintenance people included), and very careful handling - it doesn't take much imagination to figure out that an accidental JATO discharge on a busy ramp or in a maintenance hangar would not be a pretty sight. > 2. If true, has anyone here ridden a Metro during a JATO take off? > Could they share their experience? I once talked to a crew who had fired one of these (in flight) to "safe" it after its service life had expired. These things put out only about 200 pounds of thrust - supposedly just to give a boost during engine-out landing gear retraction - but they said they could definitely feel the short "bump." I got the idea, however, that it was about equal to the boost added by the water-alcohol injection system that was also present on some of the Metros' Garrett engines. Regards, Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:26 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: Metro/JATO References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > > A few years ago, I saw a Swearingin Metro with a tubluar member at > the tail apex. I asked about this, and was told that it was for a JATO > engine. > > 1. Is this true > > 2. If true, has anyone here ridden a Metro during a JATO take off? > Could they share their experience? It's quite possible, I remember reading an article and seeing pictures of a Piper Chieftain with an assisted take off system fitted, however I think it is actually RATO that we are talking about here, Rocket Assisted Take Off, not JATO. Someone correct me if I'm terminologically challenged. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:26 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Metro/JATO References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > A few years ago, I saw a Swearingin Metro with a tubluar member > at > the tail apex. I asked about this, and was told that it was for a JATO > > engine. > > 1. Is this true > > 2. If true, has anyone here ridden a Metro during a JATO take off? > Could they share their experience? My understanding is that on the earlier Metros, JATO (or more accurately, rocket assisted takeoff) was a consideration for critical engine failure on short-field/hot/high altitude takeoffs. I recall that Golden Gate used aircraft in this configuration, where it operated into Elko, NV/Ely, MT. [Moderator's note: Presumably you mean Ely, NV, which has seen air service to/from Elko, NV. My atlas doesn't list an Ely, MT. Karl] -- - Bob Mann R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Airline Industry Analysis and Consulting Port Washington, NY 11050 USA office 516-944-0900, fax-7280, mailto:rwmannco@interport.net http://www.interport.net/~rwmannco/ From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:26 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: Re: Metro/JATO References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com JATO on a Metro,what a joke. I worked for Wings West/American Eagle and they had Metro II's that had JATO most of the mechanics and pilots I talked to said it made alot of noise but that was about it. Wings West took the JATO system out of there airplanes because of there lack of power. Hope this helps David From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:26 From: awall@pacifier.com (Pacifier User) Subject: Re: Metro/JATO References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pacifier Online Data Service, Vancouver, Wa. ((360) 693-0325) Andrew Goldfinger (Andy.Goldfinger@jhuapl.edu) wrote: : A few years ago, I saw a Swearingin Metro with a tubluar member at : the tail apex. I asked about this, and was told that it was for a JATO : engine. : : 1. Is this true : : 2. If true, has anyone here ridden a Metro during a JATO take off? : Could they share their experience? When I worked for Big Sky Airlines (Montana commuter, used to be Northwest Airlink) I asked what the car-like ignition switch in the cockpit was for, the pilot told me it was for JATO, then said "The only thing it's good for is leaving a smoke trail to the crash site". Also heard from another pilot that they lit one off while the a/c was on the ramp and it didn't even move the a/c!! From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:26 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Metro/JATO References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > > A few years ago, I saw a Swearingin Metro with a tubluar member at > the tail apex. I asked about this, and was told that it was for a JATO > engine. > > 1. Is this true > > 2. If true, has anyone here ridden a Metro during a JATO take off? > Could they share their experience? The JATO was only included in the original Metro design to allow decent one engine out performance - if you lost an engine at a critical moment, like take off, you could light the JATO and stay alive. Many years ago, I was the only passenger on a Metro and got to ride kneeling behind the pilots. I noticed placards in the cockpit saying that the JATO wasn't installed. When asked about it, the crew said that the JATO was a maintainence headache and had been removed. I would guess that they had uprated engines or something to preserve OEI performance. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:26 From: "Steven G. Thomson" Subject: Re: Metro/JATO References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc Andrew Goldfinger wrote in article ... > A few years ago, I saw a Swearingin Metro with a tubluar member at > the tail apex. I asked about this, and was told that it was for a JATO > engine. It must be for Trans States Metro II service for departing Meigs Field on a hot day with a full load and sailboats in the harbor. Just kidding! Seriously, my "Illustrated Encyclopedia of Propeller Airliners" states: "The Metro II introduced a number of improvements to the flight deck and aircraft systems, larger windows and provision for a JATO (jet assisted takeoff) unit. This last is most unusual in civil aircraft, and consists of a 350 LB rocket in the tail to improve the Metro II's performance in hot and high conditions." I dispatched the Metros for a while, and found the Metro III was such a vast improvement in performance and range, that a rocket equipped II would be of dubious value. Besides, the claustrophobic cabin of the Metro coupled with a rocket assisted takeoff would tend to cut down on repeat customers! -- Steven G. Thomson Arnold, Missouri From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:26 From: Tom Gibson Subject: Re: NWA DC-4's ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: San Diego State University Walter E. Shepherd wrote: > > Can someone out there suggest where I might find info regarding details > of the old NW fleet of DC-4's... i.e., tail number, production history > (i.e., c/n, C-54?), ultimate fate, etc. A great source for stats on airliners is the Airline Fleet web site, at: http://www.concentric.net/~Aeromoe/airlines.html Although the NWA DC-4 data is somewhat spotty, there should be plenty of info there to get you started. Hope this helps. To reply the server name should be sunstroke. -- Tom Gibson Classic Airliner Page: http://members.aol.com/TGFltsim/ AlcoHauler Locomotive Page: http://members.aol.com/AlcoHauler/home/alcohaul.html Drop by! ___o_o_(")_o_o___ From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:26 From: jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam]> Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "jfmezei"@videotron.ca[nospam] There is discussion about a "new" engine for the A330HGW Question: Could Airbus not install/use the same engines used on the 777 ? What would be involved in installing an existing engine on a new plane derivative ? How much relationship is there between an engine and a plane's design and between an engine and a wing ? Is it just a question of fitting an engine that has the right thrust, or is there a lot more involved ? From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330-300HGW & new gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >There is discussion about a "new" engine for the A330HGW >Question: > Could Airbus not install/use the same engines used on the 777 ? Possibly, if it has the desired performance characteristics ... and it fits. >How much relationship is there between an engine and a plane's design >and between an engine and a wing ? Is it just a question of fitting an >engine that has the right thrust, or is there a lot more involved ? There are the rather substantial matters of weight and size. Consider the PW4060/PW4062 used on the 767, the PW4168 used on the current A330, and the PW4084 used on the 777: Model Thrust Diameter Length Weight PW4060 60,000 97.2 153.6 9,400 PW4168 68,000 100 163.1 14,350 PW4084 84,000 112 191.7 13,700 The PW4062 is probably the same size and weight as the PW4060. The PW4168 is somewhat larger and much heavier for a modest increase in thrust. The larger size/weight is the result of a larger fan, which most likely gives much better fuel burn and more growth room. The even bigger engine on the 777 has a much bigger fan yet, and more importantly, has lots of growth room without a significant change in engine. In the case of the A330HGW, the big question is whether or not the much larger PW4084 would fit. Look at the 737-300 compared to the earlier 737-100/200 to see how much engineering grief can be caused by retrofitting a larger engine. Besides diameter, there's also the question of length -- probably not so bad as it was for the center engine of an L-1011, but at the very least it could introduce new airflow interactions with the wing that would cause the aerodynamic folks some grief. Fitting the 777 engines might also be overkill. If Airbus doesn't need as much thrust as the larger engines offer, the added fuel burn and the additional drag of the larger fronter area (from the bigger fan) isn't going to do any favors for the A330HGW. Fortunately, weight doesn't appear to be an issue in this case, since the larger engine is a bit lighter. But in many cases that's not true. The original PW4000 includes engines from 52,000 lbs thrust up to the 62,000 lbs thrust PW4062/PW4162. The 767 and MD-11 already use the highest thrust engines in this sub-family, so any significant further growth would require the bigger fan -- and consequent increase in weight. That might not be a viable upgrade. Speaking of the MD-11, an added concern in some cases is greater air flow. The original DC-10 was designed with the air flow of the GE CF6 engine in mind. The JT9D applied to the DC-10-40, and the higher- thrust engines applied to the MD-11, require greater air flow than the GE engines. This is no problem for engines mounted in nacelles on the wings (or sides of the fuselage), but the "banjo frames" which support the vertical tail of the DC-10/MD-11 constrain the size of the center engine's intake duct. MD worked around this by using a bell-shaped flare at the front of the duct on the DC-10-40 and MD-11. This isn't quite as efficient as a properly sized duct all the way to the engine, but the penalty is apparently not overly burdensome. (The same sort of problem has required some creativity in 727 re-engining programs.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:27 From: Brian Wiklem Subject: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SISA I have a question, which may seem pretty unorthodox in nature... I noticed 747-400F freighters are priced at about $130-$140 million brand new. And recently, companies like Lufthansa have said no way to such a price. My question is this (and also is it feasible and worth the trouble?)? Wouldn't it be far more cost effective to take an existing 747-200 and strengthen the cargo hold, re-engine the plane with newer, fuel efficient engines (i.e. Rolls/Pratt/GE), and possibly add wing tip extensions? It seems this would be a far more cheaper solution, the only quibble being the current 'airframe' hours, and the fact I doubt you could add a fuel tank in the tail for the extended range that the -400F has..... It also brings up another somewhat related question. Although the -400 has a two crew cockpit, and the -200 having three, what about reconfiguring the cockpit to a more modern glass cockpit like Federal Express is doing with it's DC-10 to "MD-10" conversion process? Again, this is odd, but was the first thing that came to mind when hearing a lot of airlines won't pay what Boeing is asking for on the -400F...... Although the price didn't stop Atlas Air from buying 10 w/10 options. Brian *opinions are mine, not my employers* From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:27 From: jdl@teleport.com (Jay Lessert) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Teleport Internet Services In article , Jay Biederman wrote: >Actually the tires are inflated with nitrogen gas. This is because the >tire pressure stays fairly constant over large variations in >temperature Last time I checked, pv=nRT for everybody. -- Jay Lessert Portland, Oregon USA jdl@teleport.com From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:27 From: shumaker@eisner.decus.org Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe In article , malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) writes: > On 13 Jul 97 01:25:50 , Jay Biederman caused to appear as > if it was written: > >>Actually the tires are inflated with nitrogen gas. This is because the >>tire pressure stays fairly constant over large variations in >>temperature. ... > > Hmm... Given that air is 80% nitrogen, I question the assertion that > nitrogen maintains a similar volume over wide temperature variations (read: > it doesn't). The most common reason for using nitrogen for tire inflation where the pressure must remain constant or at least predictable for wide temperature variations (e.g.: racing car tires which routinely exceed 180 F tread temperature) is that bottled nitrogen is _dry_. It's the water and water vapor that cause wild pressure increases with temperature; any dry gas would work as well. Nitrogen happens to be widely available and cheap. Mark Shumaker From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:27 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl In article Merlin Dorfman, dorfman@netcom.com writes: > It's been a long time since I took thermodynamics, but if I recall >correctly after all these years, the pressure of any gas will increase >linearly with the absolute temperature if confined to a fixed volume. What about the 737? During cruise, the tires are exposed to the outside environment. Don't they get very cold, and lose pressure? From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:27 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , jbb@seanet.com wrote: > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > > > 3) What is in the inside of an aircraft tyre? I mean is it > > > filled/pumped up with air like that of car tyres or is it built as a > > > solid whole piece?? > > > > Air. It's construction is very similar to a car tire. > > Actually the tires are inflated with nitrogen gas. This is because the > tire pressure stays fairly constant over large variations in > temperature. Also, if I remember correctly, the tires are inflated to > around 140 PSI. True, but it depends on the size of the plane. Smaller planes use air. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:27 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. 187 wrote: > > Some questions:- > > 1) For the 5th engine which can be installed on the pod under the wings, > can it be used as part of the aircraft's engine thereby making the > aircraft run on five engines? When the 5th engine is installed, it is inactive - it gets no fuel. To prevent the engine from windmilling, which is a very high drag state, a special inlet is fitted to change the inlet area and hence, massflow. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:27 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >For the 5th engine which can be installed on the pod under the wings To my knowledge, the only time a fifth engine has been added to the B-747 is during testing of new engine designs; a la B777. In this case, the fifth engine can be and is used during flight. >What is the best EPR number to be attained? The larger the EPR the better. As you said, EPR is the ratio of engine inlet pressure to exhaust pressure. An EPR of 2.0 at sea level 'standard day' means that if the inlet pressure is 14.0 PSIA, the outlet pressure is 28 PSIA. >What is in the inside of an aircraft tyre? Airplane tires are filled with nitrogen, since it expands and contracts less with heat and cold. Also, it has the added benefit of not sustaining fire. TheFNG From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >To my knowledge, the only time a fifth engine has been added to the B-747 >is during testing of new engine designs; a la B777. In this case, the >fifth engine can be and is used during flight. As noted in other posts, fitting a fifth engine for ferry purposes is a relatively routine, if not common, operational situation. For testing, the engine being tested almost always replaces one of the standard engines. This was certainly true for GE's 747-100 engine testbed, used to flight test the GE-90, and for the original 747-100 which Boeing used to flight test the 777's other PW and RR engines. To do otherwise would require substantial structural modifications -- in these cases, an engine with substantially greater thrust than the original engines was being tested, and you couldn't just stick that on the wing at any old place. There are probably several counter-examples, but the only one I can think of is a 720 (or maybe a 707) that PWC used to flight test small engines. In this case, the test engine was mounted near the nose of the plane. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 From: "Gary Welch" Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Compaq Merlin Dorfman wrote in article ... > Jay Biederman (jbb@seanet.com) wrote: > : Actually the tires are inflated with nitrogen gas. This is because the > : tire pressure stays fairly constant over large variations in > : temperature... > > It's been a long time since I took thermodynamics, but if I recall > correctly after all these years, the pressure of any gas will increase > linearly with the absolute temperature if confined to a fixed volume. Nitrogen is somewhat lighter than oxygen. The difference may seem trivial but I've read that the air in the tires of a 747 weighs in the 100s of pounds (I've heard of Helium being used in some aircraft). The main reason for using nitrogen is probably that it's less reactive than oxygen and thus less likely to affect the rubber at high temperatures. From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 From: Bill Hensley Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office Reply-To: Bill_Hensley@smtp.rc.trw.com k_ish (kenish@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > > No, this is simply a "hardpoint" to haul spare engines around. I > personally have never seen this feature actually used. [...] > Ken Ishiguro You may have already seen this, but there was a photo in a recent _AW&ST_ that showed a 747-400 on a delivery run that was ferrying an engine using that hardpoint. I regret that I do not have issue information right now. In a bit of barely-related trivia, Boeing floated a study about five years ago to equip the EC-135 airborne command post (ABCNP) fleet with an APU mounted to the -135s ferry hardpoint, since the aircraft had to rely on ground power or charges to get started in austere conditions, or leave an engine running all the time while on the ground. There was never any progress with implementation due to cost. Cheers, Bill Bill_Hensley@smtp.rc.trw.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Bill_Hensley/ From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Aileron control on Airbus References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Ian McAndrew wrote: >> On a flight to Italy recently, my first on an Airbus, I was looking at >> the wing and it appeared to me that there were no conventional ailerons. >> There was a control surface close to the fuselage which showed a lot of >> activity during the approach but only in a downward direction Ken Ishiguro replied: > I am not an Airbus expert, but many aircraft use an inboard "cruise > aileron" at cruise speeds which is coupled to the autopilot and is in > fairly constant motion to maintain wings-level. At intermediate > airspeeds, flaps and spoilers are used to generate roll. At approach > speeds, conventional outboard ailerons are used. (The outboard ailerons > on most older generation aircraft are mechanically locked- accidental > full deflection at cruise speed would not be pretty!) > > On an A320, I noted the outboard ailerons were used at all airspeeds and > there appeared to be no inboard ailerons. Does Ian recall which Airbus he was on? The A320 has outboard ailerons only. These are controlled in normal flight through the Electrical Flight Control System (EFCS). The fault-tolerant design of the computer boxes in the EFCS was chosen largely to prevent uncommanded or excessive flight control surface movement of the type Ken describes. I once flew on an Aeroflot A300 from LHR to Tokyo. I was struck by the different configuration of the flight control surfaces on the wings compared to those on the A320, but can't recall exactly what they looked like. (BTW: Aeroflot were true to form. They ran out of vodka before we reached Moscow! :-) Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Aileron control on Airbus References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Ian McAndrew wrote: > > On a flight to Italy recently, my first on an Airbus, I was looking at > the wing and it appeared to me that there were no conventional ailerons. > There was a control surface close to the fuselage which showed a lot of > activity during the approach but only in a downward direction (on my > side - I assume there was a matching one doing the same on the other > side :-) > At no time did it move up and from the look of it I don't think it was > possible anyway. The impression I got was that turns were initiated by > increasing lift on the wing at the outside of the turn without a > matching aileron decreasing lift on the inside wing. My only experience is with the A310. On that aircraft there is an inboard "all speed" aileron on each wing and flight and ground spoilers. There is no conventional outboard spoiler as on Most other large transports. -Seth From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 From: Phil Wood Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Aeromarketing Associates (http://www.aeromarketing.com) Reply-To: woodp@netgate.net Snorris443 wrote: > > Technically, I believe it's up to the Captain. Don't have current > FARs with me. Try 121.317(g) (g) No person may smoke while a "No Smoking" sign is lighted or if "No Smoking" placards are posted, except that the pilot in command may authorize smoking on the flight deck except during airplane movement on the surface, takeoff, or landing. -- Phil Wood woodp@netgate.net 73717.3453@compuserve.com Philip.Wood@sv.sc.philips.com Phil Wood From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Andrew L. Stern on Sun Jul 13 10:43:44 1997 asks: > I have a scene in the cockpit of an airliner, where the captain > lights up a cigarette. > ... > My question is: Last I heard, the FAA allows the cockpit crew to smoke, > because of nicotene's benefits with regard to alertness. I would very much > appreciate if someone in the know could tell me if this is still true? In the course of several visits to flight decks, I have never seen any crew-member smoking. I think that, on non-smoking flights (all flights by BA, Cathay, Singapore, etc., in fact nearly all carriers these days) the ban on smoking extends to the flight deck. Certainly, when I had a demo flight in the jump seat of a BA A320 from LHR to Inverness and back, I was warned in advance (being a smoker) that smoking on the flight deck was definitely a no-no. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com To the best of my knowledge (and I don't have the regs here so I can't look it up) the flight deck is exempt from the smoking regulations. The argument is that a smoker without a smoke for a long flight would get fidgety and make too many mistakes. The Airline Pilot's Association (ALPA) ->strongly<- discourages it's members from smoking at all, especially on the flight deck. TheFNG From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California In article BAEJS3201 wrote: >Hey out there can anyone tell me what the differeents in a DC10-30 and >-40, I know the differents in a -10 and -30 is bigger engines,bigger wings >and center line gear. The original DC-10-10 had GE CF6-6 engines. The subsequent DC-10-30 was equipped with higher thrust CF6-50 series engines, in addition to an increased wingspan, additional center main langing gear, and higher gross weight. (A special DC-10-15 model is a DC-10-10 with the larger engines, for better hot-and-high performance out of Mexico City.) The DC-10-40 (originally designated the DC-10-20) is essentially a -30 model with Pratt and Whitney JT9D engines. Northwest was the first customer, preferring this model to maintain engine commonality with their 747 fleet. JAL was the only other customer, though subsequently other carriers have acquired ex-NW and/or ex-JAL DC-10-40s. The DC-10-40 is relatively easy to spot because the JT9D has a higher air flow requirement than the GE CF6-6 and -50, necessitating a bell- shaped flare at the front of the #2 engine duct. (The duct could not simply be enlarged, as was done for the wing-mounted engines, since this would require significant structural changes for the vertical tail, through which the #2 engine duct passes.) The MD-11 also has this flared duct, but it also has winglets; none of the GE-engined DC-10s have the flare. One other difference between the DC-10-40 and the -30 is that some of JAL's are domestic models, and the DC-10-40(D)s lack the center main landing gear. Apparently the structure is still there as I've seen reports of conversions in both directions. I'm not aware of this being done to a DC-10-30, though perhaps there are examples. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 13 Jul 97 19:52:42 , baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) caused to appear as if it was written: >Hey out there can anyone tell me what the differeents in a DC10-30 and >-40, I know the differents in a -10 and -30 is bigger engines,bigger wings >and center line gear. Basically, the -30 has GE engines and the -40 has Pratt & Whitney. The story was that the -40 was created to sell the aircraft to a die-hard P&W customer (JAL?) who wanted to take advantage of the political benefits of existing work-share programs (specifically, I think P&W has had a relationship with Japan Aero Engines for a while before the IAE partnership was formed). >David Malc. From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com BAEJS3201 wrote: > Hey out there can anyone tell me what the differeents in a DC10-30 and > -40, I know the differents in a -10 and -30 is bigger engines,bigger wings > and center line gear. Well I don't know the differeents neither the differents between a DC10-30 and -40, but I will try to tell you the difference between a DC10-30 and DC10-40. :-) The DC10-30 and -40 are both long range versions of the DC10 series. The -30 is powered by 3 CF6-50C2B engines rated at 227 kN. The -40 is powered by 3 PW JT9D59A2 engines rated at 236 kN. There were only 42 DC10-40 built, 22 for NW and 20 for JAL. This isn't a lot compared to the 209 DC10-30 which were sold. For further details have a look at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/technic.htm where the most interesting parameters for the DC10 are summarized. Regards ............................................................ Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:29 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Marc Schaeffer wrote: >The DC10-30 and -40 are both long range versions of the DC10 series. The >-30 is powered by 3 CF6-50C2B engines rated at 227 kN. The -40 is >powered by 3 PW JT9D59A2 engines rated at 236 kN. JAL's DC-10-40s have JT9D-59A (not -59A2) engines. Northwest's have either JT9D-20 or -20J engines. Similarly, the DC-10-30 comes with a variety CF6-50 series engines. Northwest has two with the -50C2B variant you mention (yes, Northwest has both DC-10-30s and -40s) but the others have -50C engines. The -50C2 seems to be the most popular choice -- the other US majors all seem to have them on their DC-10-30s, as do British Airways and the former Lufthansa planes. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:29 From: k_ish Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Please remove NOSPAM to respond. Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com BAEJS3201 wrote: > Hey out there can anyone tell me what the differeents in a DC10-30 and > -40, I know the differents in a -10 and -30 is bigger engines,bigger wings > and center line gear. Basic difference is the -40 has P&W (JT-9D) engines instead of the GE CF-6 engines on the -30. The only operator to my knowledge is NW; my guess is they did not want to introduce a new engine type into their fleet (their 747s already used the JT-9). BTW, Cathay Pacific actively advertises an "all Rolls-Royce powered fleet". Originally, the -40 was designated the -20, but NW asked that the dash number be changed. Refer to Airways, August 1997, page 38. Hope this answers your question; Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:29 From: mou3@aol.com (Mou3) Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com DC10-40, operated by Northwest and JAL have Pratt and Whitney engines vs DC10-10 and 30's which are GE powered. The -40 is an odd bird. It has the center main gear wheel like the -30, designed to carry extra fuel payload, but not nearly the fuel capacity of the -30. As a result, its market value is about the same as the series 10, since it doesn't really have intercontinental range. From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:29 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The -40 is an odd bird. It has the >center main gear wheel like the -30, designed to carry extra fuel payload, >but not nearly the fuel capacity of the -30. As a result, its market value >is about the same as the series 10, since it doesn't really have >intercontinental range. Northwest certainly flew them on intercontinental routes, across the Pacific, the I believe I remember hearing that their -30s are now used for Pacific flights while the -40s fly domestic and Europe. AW&ST lists the following still air ranges: DC-10-10 4,123 miles DC-10-30 6,357 DC-10-40 5,988 It had been my impression that the -40's range shortfall was due to higher fuel burn with the JT9D engines. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:29 From: "Steven J. Lorenc" Subject: De-icing airplane wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Construction Automation & Robotics Laboratory Reply-To: sjlorenc@eos.ncsu.edu Could someone tell me who is responsible for the de-icing of wings? Does each individual airline have it's own crew for that? I'm looking for either the names of some of the manufacturers of the trucks or the companies which supply the service. Thanks Steve -- Steven J. Lorenc, Ph.D. Office: (919) 515-8408 Associate Technical Director Fax: (919) 515-7908 Construction Automation Email: sjlorenc@eos.ncsu.edu & Robotics Laboratory North Carolina State University http://www4.ncsu.edu/~sjlorenc/ Raleigh, NC 27695-7908 http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/CIL/CARL/ From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:29 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "Lee Tze Yen, Bob" wrote: > I've always been pondering over this question: > > Why are winglets not used on the newer Boeing aircraft, for example the > B777, and the originally proposed B747-500X/600X??? If I'm not wrong, these > winglets help improve the fuel efficiencies of the B747-400. And why are > winglets used on the latest B767-400ERX???? > > In contrast, winglets are used on all the new Airbus models, especially the > A330/A340 variants. Winglets are a compromise, used to improve the efficiency of an existing or flawed wing design. If you have the opportunity to design a wing from scratch and you get it right, as was done with the 777 and the New Generation 737 family, there is no reason to install winglets. While they may increase the efficiency of some wings, they are a pain in the butt during manufacture and they add unwanted weight. The only winglets that truly work well are the ones on birds like ravens, hawks, eagles, condors, etc. They work because the bird can put them in when they're helpful and get rid of them when they aren't, and they're almost infinitely variable. If we could figure out how to do that on an airplane reliably and with no weight penalty, we'd really have something. Incidentally, one of the most efficient wings in the sky (according to the airlines who fly it, not me) is the 757 wing. One of the "problems" 757 pilots have is slowing the plane down, the wing is so efficient. And neither it nor the 767 have winglets. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:29 From: Darren Rhodes Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Francois Airault wrote: >Could someone explain why the B767 gear is tilted the "wrong" way, i.e. >front wheels down, instead of the seemingly more natural rear wheels >down design like the 747, 777 or A340 ? The wheels tilt the 'other' way on the A340/A330 as this helps to spring the aircraft into the air on rotation. I have heard Airbus claim it saves 100ft or so on the takeoff run. -- 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 Mon Jul 28 01:13:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:29 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , air-admin@chicago.com wrote: > >Also, what kind of weight is required to force the rear wheels down > >after touchdown ? At low weights, the aircraft has a tendency to > >"tiptoe" after landing. I think the A340 needs around 50 tons on the > >mains to fully settle down. I don't think it takes any weight at all. When I've filmed 767s landing on the forward trucks first, the rear trucks touch down immediately afterward even though it's obvious the wing is still carrying a good part of the plane's weight and the nose is still being held off in the flare. To my knowledge, there is no spring force to be overcome. The wheel assemblies just hang naturally in that position, unlike the 777 main gear which is powered into and out of its rearward slant position from the horizontal. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:29 From: "François Airault" Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Air France Reply-To: fairault@compuserve.com > The gear tilt "toe down" in order to stow more efficiently. This allows > the main gear well to be shorter, making the cargo holds longer. This is > goodness since longer cargo holds carry more revenue stuff. A small side > benefit is that a shorter gear well makes the airplane slightly lighter > and stiffer. > -- > (Author's name withheld by request) Is this a fact, or are you assuming ? My recollection from the type rating is that the gear is hydraulically (normal) or mechanically (standby, by the inner doors) untilted while retracting. Looking at the 767 wheel well, it actually seems that the gear is stowed straightened, with the truck parallel to the centerline. In addition, calling the 767 main gear "short" and "light" is a rather stem way of putting it. It is a very complicated design, and the tilted truck is only part of it. I'm only curious to understand why (ok, VERY curious now that I have done some digging, to no avail). Francois- From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:30 From: "François Airault" Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: Air France Reply-To: fairault@compuserve.com Gary McKinnis wrote: > With a nose-high attitude on landing, the main gear trucks are very > close to parallel to the landing surface at touchdown. Gary,I don't think so. Simon Craig said the tilt is 17=B0, and I believe he's right. Since the landing attitude is 4-5=B0, an all-wheels touchdown would put the tail several feet below the pavement, especially on the -300 series aircraft. Not the best way to make a career... Glad to see I'm not the only one to wonder, however. Thanks for the input, I'll let you know if I ever find the Holy answer. Francois- From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:30 From: "Allan S. Howard" Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mechanical Flight Systems Reply-To: Allan.Howard@PSS.boeing.com > >Could someone explain why the B767 gear is tilted the "wrong" way, i.e. > >front wheels down, instead of the seemingly more natural rear wheels > >down design like the 747, 777 or A340 ? > > The gear tilt "toe down" in order to stow more efficiently. This allows > the main gear well to be shorter, making the cargo holds longer. This is > goodness since longer cargo holds carry more revenue stuff. A small side > benefit is that a shorter gear well makes the airplane slightly lighter > and stiffer. No. The main gear truck is parallel with the body when stowed. The main gear strut pivot is not parallel with the body, so that the downward tilt of the gear compensates for the forward tilt of the strut when stowed. Stowed view from above: Fwd left, Aft right (767) / ------/------ 0-0 0-0 ------\------ \ Hope this helps. I've always wondered this myself, and finally found a picture that shows the gear stowed. By the way I'm not in the landing gear group. I'm not an authority on this. From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:30 From: "Steven G. Thomson" Subject: Re: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc Chris Elberfeld wrote in article ... > I seem to remember reading somewhere that Danish charter operator > Sterling Airways flew Caravelles on Scandinavia-USA charters > sometime in the late 1960's. Can anyone furnish details (fuel stops, > how long the service ran, etc)? Until the mid eighties, Sterling Airways used to fly scheduled charters with 727-200's CPH-YYZ via KEF. The Caravelle to SFO would certainly be a stretch! -- Steven G. Thomson Arnold, Missouri From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:30 From: "elysium" Subject: Re: HS Trident...VC-10 and BOAC References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Internet Africa Antoin Daltún wrote in article The VC10 was also a victim of Rolls-Royce. The Conway was a good civil > engine when it came out first on the B707-400 and on a small number of > DC-8s. In fact, it was the first commercial turbofan. However, the > by-pass ratio was low and Pratt & Whitney soon came out came out with the > higher by-pass ratio JT3D which was also very reliable for its time. > Rolls-Royce never responded and even BOAC switched to the JT3D for later > B707s. Vickers did not respond either. Conjecture, urban legend or perhaps just a cruel joke played on me by my journeyman when I was an apprentice at Brit' Airways :- I was told that the Conway had pretty high sfc which left the VC-10 & Super VC-10 a bit weight/temp' and therefore payload limited, critically so on the prime North Atlantic routes. The legend went that Vickers envisaged an operating procedure whereby 2 motors would be shutdown in cruise thereby reducing fuel burn, but that they were stymied ( not surprisingly ) by the C.A.A. and that this sounded the commercial death knell for the unarguably beautiful a/c. Function more important than form everytime, unfortunately for the purists. I've kept this to myself till now ! ---- surely that was not a genuine consideration ???? The " weird " Trident ( DH/HS 121 ) ? was an aeroplane I turned a wrench on briefly ( circa 1982/1983 ) and by then, from a maintenance point of view, it had been tamed and was actually a fairly reliable workhorse. I remember changing and trimming the centre engine in little over a shift { 8 hours } and having fair respect for the fact that it pioneered CAT 111A development. In those days the Brit's were quite happy to design and build an aeroplane to fit their own vision and be damned the upstarts that thought they could cut corners. I believe, but stand to be corrected, that the old guard from the VC-10/Trident projects had a lot to do with the design & concept of the L-1011 at Lockheed and were perhaps finally vindicated in their over design/ redundancy way of doing things when the DC-10 suffered criticism for it's lack of hydraulic/flight control back-up in the fall out of Paris (THY), Sioux City etc. It would be churlish and partisan perhaps ( and not reflective of the giant contributions made by Douglas and in particular Boeing ) to make the point that ( without adjustment for miles/sectors flown in toto ) that the DH121/VC-10/L-1011 and for arguments sake BAC 1-11, all demonstrated a frugal pax fatility rate in service bearing in mind they were in the vanguard ( no pun intended -- Handley Page ) of multi engine complex aircraft development in the golden days of mass passenger transport. Granted, the Boeing 727 puts them all to shame; they were too generic, imperious, and products of a misguided perception, however, they were beautifully built and worthy of a bit of hindsight. The Spey is also, arguably a milestone motor. Interesting to see them causing so much debate, I think they've earn't it. -- >From : elysium@iafrica.com " Slow to erect, quick to topple -- A maverick gimbal ". Member of the ' I sat backwards in a REAL aeroplane society'. From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:30 From: tgg@hpl.hp.com.NOSPAM () Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness 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 Can anybody confirm or deny this quote: " The defunct and unlamented Trident was unique in that reverse thrust was selected before the aircraft touched down and the aircraft could b elowered onto the runway by its judicious application. As this action was carried out by the co-pilot, it was the only aircraft designed to be landed by the person who wasn't flying the airplane." I suppose I ought to give the source. "Bluff your way on the flight deck" by Capt. Ken Beere. The biography states, among other things, that the author - is ex-RAF - spent 32 years flying passenger planes - for BEA - to Europe, etc Hence I strongly suspect he did fly Tridents. -- =============================================================================== 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 Mon Jul 28 01:13:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:30 From: don@toyunix.zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: HS Trident/More weirdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Wolery Reply-To: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz Darren Rhodes wrote: >The description above is the correct layout of the undercarriage on a >Trident. The undercarriage is also fairly unique in that to stow the 4 >wheels on a single main gear axle, the leg shortens and rotates >through 90deg. so that the wheels occupy the minimum space possible. >Of course the extra complexity added weight to the design - hence this >approach hasn't been used since on civil aircraft. Concorde also shortens its rather lanky gear prior to retraction. The main gear is the traditional two-axle variety, so it doesn't need to do the rotation. Question: how is the shortening done? (Both on Concorde & Trident?) -- don From kls Mon Jul 28 01:13:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Jul 97 01:13:30 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: HS Trident/More weirdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany Wasn't it the Trident being undepowered in such a way it had to rely solely on the curvature of earth to attain a positive climb on takeoff? ;-) Burkhard TUB Aero&Astro From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:24 From: steven tobey Subject: Q:FedEx B737? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: FlashNet Communications I came across a photo of a Federal Express B737, N201FE, which I believe was taken before 1984. It's painted in their paint scheme, was FedEx evaluating the 737, did the aircraft(s) actually enter service with them? When did this take place? Steve From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:25 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Q:FedEx B737? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I came across a photo of a Federal Express B737, N201FE, which I believe >was taken before 1984. It's painted in their paint scheme, was FedEx >evaluating the 737, did the aircraft(s) actually enter service with them? I wouldn't have believed it, but FedEx bought at least four 737-2S2Cs from Boeing in 1979. Here's some further info on them: reg msn/ln f.flt. dely disposition ------ --------- ------ ------ ----------- N201FE 21926/597 790814 790829 Sun Land 5-8/81 (leased); ARAMCO 10/81 (N720A) N203FE 21927/600 790907 790919 LAN Chile 3/81 (CC-CHU); Aloha 5/90 (N806AL) N204FE 21928/603 790918 790928 ARAMCO 12/80 (N715A) N205FE 21929/608 791008 791017 ARAMCO 1/81 (N716A) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:25 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: An 24 V Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com This post is related to the high performance version of the Antonov 24 called 24V. I read that it has an auxilary turbojet engine in the right engine nacelle rated at 8kN. The same engine is also used on the An26. - Is this a unique way to enhance performance of a turboprop ? - Was this choice caused by a lack of more powerful engines ? - Is there a picture and/or technical description of this particular feature on the WWW ? Regards ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:26 From: richard@rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) Subject: Russian winglet size.... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. After following C. Martin Faure's posts in recent weeks regarding winglets, their use and lack thereof, and having seen today an article in Australian Aviation that says the 767-400ER will now *not* have winglets but a "raked wingtip" design I'm reminded of a question that has been in the back of my mind for a while. This relates to the IL-96 and TU-204 Russian airliners - both which have winglets, but both which *appear*(to the eye anyway) to be way out of proportion (ie; too big) to the rest of the aircraft compared to western types such as the A330/A340 and 747-400 winglets. Does anyone know if it is because of the specific Russian designs, or that they've just done a copy-cat perhaps without doing all the sums and maybe thought something as simple as "bigger is better" ? Does anyone have any figures one way or the other to determine if they help or hinder the Russian types? trivia r us, richard -- Richard Muirden, Senior Unix Systems Administrator Infrastructure Services Branch, RMIT Information Technology Services Likes: Shostakovich (144 CD's), 'planes, sci-fi, cats, cuddling, romance, ... mailto: richard@rmit.EDU.AU http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard "Worlds may change, Galaxies disintergrate, but a Woman always remains a Woman" From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Russian winglet size.... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >This relates to the IL-96 and TU-204 Russian airliners - both which have >winglets ... because of the specific Russian designs, or that they've >just done a copy-cat perhaps without doing all the sums and maybe >thought something as simple as "bigger is better" ? While they don't have the compute horsepower to support all the CFD work as done in the West, aerodynamics seems to be a Russian strength, so I'd seriously doubt that a "bigger is better" approach would be the explanation. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:26 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com C. Marin Faure wrote: > Winglets are a compromise, used to improve the efficiency of an existing > or flawed wing design. If you have the opportunity to design a wing from > scratch and you get it right, as was done with the 777 and the New > Generation 737 family, there is no reason to install winglets. While they > may increase the efficiency of some wings, they are a pain in the butt > during manufacture and they add unwanted weight. Also, the efficiency improvement from winglets is only fully realized at high altitude sustained cruise. Although winglets yield an efficiency increase at any altitude/airspeed, this improvement does not offset the weight and manufacturing penalties C. Marin describes. Since the 737 flies relatively short flights and spends a larger percentage of its time in climb or descent (compared to, say, a 747-400), winglets don't make sense. In fact, there is a 747-400 Domestic which is used for high-density short hops (1-2 hours) within Japan. It does not have winglets (and has structural enhancements to handle the higher number of flight cycles). Ken Ishiguro From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:27 From: Jack Cullen Subject: info on DC-3 in Portland OR/Vancouver WA area Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WOMR-FM, 92.1MHz - OuterMost community Radio in Provincetown, Cape Cod, MA Reply-To: yoda@daigobah.com Howdy y'all, We're trying to find out the location and current status of an airplane that may be in the Portland/Vancouver area. It's a DC-3A that we used to fly for Provincetown-Boston Airline (PBA). The registration number at that time was N136PB, but the most recent information I've been able to get indicates it's registered now as N18121 - which was its original number when Eddie Rickenbacker bought it brand new in 1937 from Donald Douglas and it entered Eastern's "Great Silver Fleet". This leads me to believe it may be under restoration and will be put into the EAL c.1937 livery. I, and a bunch of other ex-PBA folks, would really like to know what has become of this airplane. The demise of PBA was an extremely emotional affair and this plane was our pride and joy and we'd really like to know how it's doing now. It flew our last ever scheduled flight! It flew from LGA to HYA and when it arrived at about 10pm that night it set off a party that lasted 3 days and 4 nights. At that time it had about 92,000 hours on the airframe and had taught untold numbers of idiot co-pilots and not-overly-bright captains (myself included), the proper way to fly. If anybody has any information about it, we'd sure like to hear from you. Reply via the newsgroup or the e-mail below. Thanks, -- Jack Cullen West Chatham, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA Please reply to: DougDriver "at" aol "dot" com From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:27 From: Kees de Lezenne Coulande Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Karl Swartz, INTERNET:kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM wrote: >One other difference between the DC-10-40 and the -30 is that some of >JAL's are domestic models, and the DC-10-40(D)s lack the center main >landing gear. Apparently the structure is still there as I've seen >reports of conversions in both directions. I'm not aware of this >being done to a DC-10-30, though perhaps there are examples. There might be more to this than meets the eye. Many years ago (probably Spring 1979) I was photographing landing aircraft at Miami (MIA). When I had developed the pictures, it turned out that I had photographed the same National Airlines DC-10-30 on successive days with and without the centre gear. This didn't seem right, so I checked the photographs very carefully for airframe differences, but did not find any. I then started asking around and finally dug up a DC-10-30 flight manual. It turns out that the flight engineer can isolate the centre gear (i.e. keep it retracted). The manual shows performance graphs for this configuration. The benefit is an increase in climb-limited landing weight (less drag for the landing climb), at the expense of a lower structural landing weight. This could result in a higher payload in hot and high conditions. Now Miami was certainly hot, but it is not high. So I do not see any specific benefit at MIA, other than saving on wear and tear when the landing weight is low enough to allow it. Kees de Lezenne Coulander -- C.M. de Lezenne Coulander Amsterdam-Zuidoost The Netherlands E-mail: Lezenne@CompuServe.com Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B.V. Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>One other difference between the DC-10-40 and the -30 is that some of >>JAL's are domestic models, and the DC-10-40(D)s lack the center main >>landing gear. Apparently the structure is still there as I've seen >>reports of conversions in both directions. I'm not aware of this >>being done to a DC-10-30, though perhaps there are examples. > I then started asking around and finally dug up a DC-10-30 flight >manual. It turns out that the flight engineer can isolate the centre gear >(i.e. keep it retracted). Presumably the DC-10-40 has the same feature, which I vaguely recall now that you mention it. However, the report I read about the JAL domestic models indicated that the center post had been physically removed from the aircraft (or re-installed when coverted back to the non-domestic version). I can't vouch for the accuracy of the report, but if the aircraft is already certified for use with the center gear stowed, it's not too much of a stretch to see JAL completely removing it for service in which it will simply add extra weight. >The benefit is an increase in climb-limited landing weight Can it be deployed once on the ground? I wouldn't have thought so, but that means a light landing would then force a light takeoff. >So I do not see any specific benefit at MIA, other than saving on >wear and tear when the landing weight is low enough to allow it. Or if there was some problem with the center gear. Presumably it's not on the MEL so long as you follow the weight restriction. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:28 From: elberfeld@sprintmail.com Subject: Re: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: elberfeld@sprintmail.com An earlier reply to my posting quoted an "Airliners" magazine article which mentioned that Sterling did, in fact, fly a CPH-KEF-YQX-OMA-SFO (whew)service in 1970. It did not say how long this service lasted. Sterling was no stranger to long, multi-stop charters with Caravelles during this time period. Their crash in Dubai in 1972 was of a Colombo (Sri Lanka) to CPH flight. That's (roughly) about as far as from CPH to SFO, but with less overwater flying. Either way, that's a long haul on a Caravelle, cheap charter fare notwithstanding. From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:28 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 , Pete Mellor caused to appear as if it was written: >Andrew L. Stern on Sun Jul 13 10:43:44 1997 asks: > >> I have a scene in the cockpit of an airliner, where the captain >> lights up a cigarette. >> ... >> My question is: Last I heard, the FAA allows the cockpit crew to smoke, >> because of nicotene's benefits with regard to alertness. I would very much >> appreciate if someone in the know could tell me if this is still true? I believe so, but... >In the course of several visits to flight decks, I have never >seen any crew-member smoking. I think that, on non-smoking >flights (all flights by BA, Cathay, Singapore, etc., in fact >nearly all carriers these days) the ban on smoking extends >to the flight deck. ... the airlines have their own rules preventing staff members smoking on board. Malc. From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:28 From: hmt@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson) Subject: Low vs. High Wings? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cygnus Solutions, Cambridge, UK Apologies if it's in the FAQ, a question, and suggested answer: Why do commercial airliners have low wings and military transports have high wings? We figured: Commercial passenger airliners want (all of these for passenger aesthetics): o clear, uniform cross section full length of (upper part of) body = with high wings, the spar &c intrudes = low wings, it's in the hold, no worries, can contain fuel tank o straight body for as long as possible = implies long undercarriage to let you land it without tailscrape - high wings get reduced ground effect and awkward maintenance - low wings get good ground effect and easier maintenance - can get along with long, weak undercarriage, runways are good, and landing weights are low o engines away from the body for reduced noise = and for less interference from fuselage airflow Military transports want: o low body for driving stuff on & off = high wings needed for ground clearance and reduced FOD - spar is in the roof, above round, low payload bay o strong, so short, undercarriage needed, runways may be bad = see above = need raked up tail to let you land it without tailscrape = landing weight may be high, no refuel available at destination? o don't care about shape in tail = so you can have banana shaped 'plane with short legs - even if it's troop transport it can be banana shaped o don't care about noise for the payload I know some transports have low wings & some small airliners have high wings (usually with props on), so it ain't a complete generalisation. But are there any obvious, simple reasons beyond those above in combination? TIA, - Huge From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:29 From: "Bart L. Grossman" Subject: Re: Metro/JATO References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey Reply-To: blgrossm@nps.navy.mil.nospam Trevor Fenn wrote: > I think it is actually RATO that we are talking about here, Rocket > Assisted Take Off, not JATO. Someone correct me if I'm terminologically > challenged. You're correct as far as the C-130 is concerned. Although using rockets to assist takeoff the term used in the military(at least Navy) is JATO. -- To reply remove .nospam from address. LT Bart L. Grossman 591A Michelson RD Monterey CA 93940 1-408-645-9428 From kls Thu Jul 31 12:30:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 12:30:29 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Metro/JATO References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. As a sidenote - Mexicana bought some 727s specially outfitted for the use of JATO bottles to help with the take-off from Mexico City. [Moderator's note: There was a bit of discussion about these about 2.5 years ago; see http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archive-search.html and search for "727 and JATO". Karl] ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Thu Jul 31 18:57:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 31 Jul 97 18:57:34 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: FedEx MD-11 crash at Newark Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California FedEx flight 14, operating TPE-ANC-EWR, crashed today (July 31) at approximately 1:35 am EST while landing on Newark's runway 29. The initial impact was only 200 yards from Terminal B, and the burning wreckage blocked the runway, EWR's shortest. The other two runways at EWR were open for departures only by 8 am, and for arrivals by 11:30 am. At least one witness reported seeing flames coming from the aircraft before it landed and flipped on its back. A small part of the cargo consisted of hazardous materials -- less than 400 pounds out of a total of 125,000 pounds -- and the wreckage continued to burn hours after the crash. A hazmat team was at the scene in addition to the regular fire fighters. Both pilots and all three passengers -- two FedEx employees and an employee of another airline -- escaped via cockpit windows. The were treated for minor injuries at a nearby hospital and released. A number of fire fighters were hospitalized for smoke inhalation. This was the first MD-11 hull loss. Less than a year ago, on September 5, 1996, FedEx flight 1406, a DC-10-10CF flying MEM-BOS, made an emergency landing at Stewart International Airport in New Windsor, NY, after warnings of smoke in the cabin. There were no fatalities in that accident, either, but after landing an uncontrolled fire near the center of the cabin burned through the fuselage. The NTSB has not issued a final report on that accident (NTSB accident number DCA96MA079) but reportedly hazardous materials were involved. Cargo-only operations have fewer restrictions on hazardous cargo than do passenger operations. Still, after the other FedEx accident and ValuJet 592, it will be interesting to see what happens if hazardous material turn out to be the cause of this accident. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:13 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , kenish@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Also, the efficiency improvement from winglets is only fully realized at > high altitude sustained cruise. Although winglets yield an efficiency > increase at any altitude/airspeed, this improvement does not offset the > weight and manufacturing penalties C. Marin describes. Since the 737 > flies relatively short flights and spends a larger percentage of its > time in climb or descent (compared to, say, a 747-400), winglets don't > make sense. In fact, there is a 747-400 Domestic which is used for > high-density short hops (1-2 hours) within Japan. It does not have > winglets (and has structural enhancements to handle the higher number of > flight cycles). The Domestic 747-400s Mr. Ishiguro describes will spend their first years in service in short-haul service which puts a lot of cycles on the airframe but not a lot of hours. When the airframes become high-cycle, the plan is to fit the -400's wing extensions and winglets (and whatever other modifications are necessary to make it identical to "normal" -400s) and put them in long-haul service which puts a lot of hours on the airframe but not many cycles. The theory behind this is that it will maximize the revenue life of the plane. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:14 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Russian winglet size.... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , richard@rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) wrote: > After following C. Martin Faure's posts in recent weeks regarding winglets, > their use and lack thereof, and having seen today an article in Australian > Aviation that says the 767-400ER will now *not* have winglets but a "raked > wingtip" design I'm reminded of a question that has been in the back of my > mind for a while. This relates to the IL-96 and TU-204 Russian airliners - > both which have winglets, but both which *appear*(to the eye anyway) to be > way out of proportion (ie; too big) to the rest of the aircraft compared to > western types such as the A330/A340 and 747-400 winglets. Does anyone know > if it is because of the specific Russian designs, or that they've just done > a copy-cat perhaps without doing all the sums and maybe thought something as > simple as "bigger is better" ? Does anyone have any figures one way or the > other to determine if they help or hinder the Russian types? I don't have the answer, but I agree the winglets on the IL-96 are absolutely monstrous and they look heavy as heck. Perhaps the wing cannot for structural reasons take any sort of linear extension so the huge winglet was their only recourse to get the range or performance they were after. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:14 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Low vs. High Wings? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , hmt@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson) wrote: > Apologies if it's in the FAQ, a question, and suggested answer: > > Why do commercial airliners have low wings and military transports have > high wings? Your list seems pretty good except for the bit about the raked-up tail to avoid tail strikes on takeoff or landing. I don't think that's the primary reason. I think the tail is raked up to accomodate the loading ramp which is used on the ground and in some transports (C-130, C-17) in the air to deploy troops and air-droppable cargo. The B-52 and B-47 have high wings but did not have severely raked-up afterbodies. The B-52 doesn't really rotate however, either on takeoff or landing, but he B-47 seems to in the film I've seen. I would be curious to know if speed is a factor. It seems that all the military transports are pretty slow in cruise compared to jetliners. This may be due to factors entirely separate from the wing position, however. But I suspect the greatest reason for the high wing on military transports is simply to keep the engines off the ground and the fuselage close to it for loading purposes. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:14 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: De-icing airplane wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Wild.Net, L.L.C. Steven J. Lorenc wrote in article ... > Could someone tell me who is responsible for the de-icing of wings? > Does each individual airline have it's own crew for that? I'm looking > for either the names of some of the manufacturers of the trucks or the > companies which supply the service. I've often seen de-icing trucks with airlines' names on them, but I suppose they could still belong to subcontractors. I do know that one manufacturer of the vehicles is FMC. From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:14 From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nobody but me In article , elberfeld@sprintmail.com wrote: >An earlier reply to my posting quoted an "Airliners" magazine article >which mentioned that Sterling did, in fact, fly a CPH-KEF-YQX-OMA-SFO >(whew)service in 1970. It did not say how long this service lasted. Probably not as long as the flight itself. From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:14 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , Brian Wiklem wrote: > I noticed 747-400F freighters are priced at about $130-$140 million > brand new. And recently, companies like Lufthansa have said no > way to such a price. > Wouldn't it be far more cost effective to take an existing 747-200 > and strengthen the cargo hold, re-engine the plane with newer, > fuel efficient engines (i.e. Rolls/Pratt/GE), and possibly add > wing tip extensions? The differences in between the 747-400 and earlier 747 models are quite significant. The two-man flight deck was not just a matter of getting rid of the third seat and putting the flight engineer's controls and instrumentation somewhere else. The systems throughout the 747-400 are a lot different than the earlier models. Reconfigurng an older 747 to 747-400 specifications would mean an almost complete rebuild of the plane, if for no other reason than to install all the new systems and BITE (built in test equipment) that are required to make the 747-400 work. The extra fuel capacity of the -400 is critical if you want to take advantage of the extremely long ranges the airplane is capable of: without that capability there's not much point in going to the 747-400 at all. At one point, companies (I believe Lockheed among them) were exploring the idea of re-engining the 727 and converting it to a two-man glass flight deck. The re-engining was fairly straightforward I seem to recall, but the project died when they began to realize what would be involved in converting the plane and its systems to a two-man glass cockpit. It would be cheaper in the long run for an operator to simply replace their 727s with a current-generation plane like a 757. There are 747-400s that were built with the 747-200/300 wing. These are used in domestic service in Asia. The intention is that they will operate initially in a service that puts a lot of cycles on the plane but not that many hours. Then when the cycles get high, they will install the 747-400 wing extensions and winglets and whatever other upgrades are necessary and operate them in long-haul international service, which puts a lot of hours on the airframe but not that many cycles. The theory is that by doing this, the operators will maximize the use of the planes over their service life. However, these planes were built as 747-400s as far as the flight deck and on-board systems are concerned. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:15 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The differences in between the 747-400 and earlier 747 models are quite >significant. The two-man flight deck was not just a matter of getting >rid of the third seat and putting the flight engineer's controls and >instrumentation somewhere else. The systems throughout the 747-400 are >a lot different than the earlier models. That's true, but a two-person flight deck doesn't imply changing all those systems. The 757 and 767 have a relatively modern, two-person, glass cockpit, but they don't have the systems sophistication of the 747-400. The MD-10 conversion of the DC-10 includes a two-person glass cockpit, but I doubt they are changing all the plane's systems. I think some 727s have been similarly conerted, possibly the Dee Howard conversion, which includes re-engining with RR Tays, done for UPS and perhaps others. I recall recently hearing some about a project to convert older 747s to two-person, glass cockpits. Might have been for Atlas but I would not bet much on that. >Reconfigurng an older 747 to 747-400 specifications would mean an >almost complete rebuild of the plane ... But you don't need to go to 747-400 specs to eliminate the FE position and go to a glass-cockpit. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:15 From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nobody but me In article , Brian Wiklem wrote: >My question is this (and also is it feasible and worth the trouble?)? > >Wouldn't it be far more cost effective to take an existing 747-200 >and strengthen the cargo hold, re-engine the plane with newer, >fuel efficient engines (i.e. Rolls/Pratt/GE), and possibly add >wing tip extensions? We do much of that here at Boeing Wichita. We generally don't re-engine the aircraft and put on winglets, but we do cut a cargo door in the side aft of the wing and put in a cargo floor. We usually have 3 planes in work at any one time (I'm not too sure how long it takes to do the conversion). Right now we have 2 in house. One looks almost ready for delivery and one is about to get its cargo door. The biggest problem with the -200 conversion is finding suitable aircraft on the market. There is talk that we will soon start converting -300s, though I doubt that we'll shorten the hump. We may also start to see 767s for conversion. The biggest advantage of the -400F (or factory built -2/300F) over a converted -2/300 (besides the lift ability) is the nose door. We do not install the swing nose on the converted aircraft. Andy Muir Boeing Wichita From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:15 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The biggest advantage of the -400F (or factory built -2/300F) over a >converted -2/300 (besides the lift ability) is the nose door. Another big advantage of purpose-built freighters is that they do not have most of the cabin windows, and thus don't have the heavy structures which surround the cutouts. I've seen fuselages for both passenger and UPS 757s being fabricated. It's quite a dramatic difference -- the skin is milled out in unbroken areas, but left thicker where windows go, an opening is made, and then a heavy aluminum forging is inserted into the opening. The UPS ones not only didn't have the opening or forging, the area where the window might have gone is milled just as thin as the nearby, unbroken areas. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:15 From: nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: differences in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On 31 Jul 97, kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >> I then started asking around and finally dug up a DC-10-30 flight >>manual. It turns out that the flight engineer can isolate the centre gear >>(i.e. keep it retracted). > >Presumably the DC-10-40 has the same feature, which I vaguely recall Yes, it does, as does the MD-11. Not sure of the details of the JAL DC-10's, but I suspect they took it upon themselves to remove the center strut after delivery. >Can it be deployed once on the ground? I wouldn't have thought so, >but that means a light landing would then force a light takeoff. Can be, but requires deflating the strut. Then using a hoist, the gear is slowly lowered and pushed aft until the lock links go over center. Finally, the strut is reserviced and is ready for use. Neil - nw@ix.netcom.com From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:15 From: Koos Zwaanenburg Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM tgg@hpl.hp.com.NOSPAM wrote: >Can anybody confirm or deny this quote: > > " The defunct and unlamented Trident was unique in that reverse > thrust was selected before the aircraft touched down and the aircraft > could b elowered onto the runway by its judicious application. As > this action was carried out by the co-pilot, it was the only > aircraft designed to be landed by the person who wasn't flying > the airplane." This is fascinating... I used to fly on Tridents a lot, AMS-LHR, between 1980 and 1983, until BA acquired 757s. I always wondered why Tridents were smashed against the runway during side wind landings at Heathrow. Heathrow had only two parallel runways then, so side wind landings were somewhat common. Awsome landings! Shook the fillings right out of my teeth, it seemed. During one of these side wind landings, I thought I'd figured it out: They applied thrust reversal just prior to touch down. I'm convinced that I could hear it, and I certainly could feel it. Since then I have asked a number of people "in the know" if you can apply thrust reversers in flight. This question also figured prominently after the Lauda Air 767 crash over Thailand(?) I always got the same answer, that brakes and thrust reversers are disabled until the aircraft is rolling down the runway, which is determined by the weight-on-wheels(WOW) logic in the landing gears. >From experience I would like to confirm the above quote. But people more knowledgeable than I would probably deny. So what are the facts? Did the Trident have a unique feature? Koos Zwaanenburg From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:16 From: john@pegase.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: HS Trident/More weirdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Me at home with my cat On 28 Jul 97 01:13:30 , in , Burkhard Domke wrote: >Wasn't it the Trident being undepowered in such a way it had to rely >solely on the curvature of earth to attain a positive climb on >takeoff? It was certainly the case that in hot conditions the Trident would find it impossible to climb through a temperature inversion at times - making it just a little difficult on such occasions to comply with ATC instructions. -- John Wright From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:16 From: jpboes@arrakis.es (Jvrg-Peter Bvs) Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Meditair Reply-To: jpboes@arrakis.es Chicago.COM> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Path: 195.5.78.133 NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.5.78.133 Lines: 17 On 28 Jul 97 01:13:30 , tgg@hpl.hp.com.NOSPAM () wrote: >Can anybody confirm or deny this quote: > > " The defunct and unlamented Trident was unique in that reverse > thrust was selected before the aircraft touched down and the aircraft > could b elowered onto the runway by its judicious application. As > this action was carried out by the co-pilot, it was the only > aircraft designed to be landed by the person who wasn't flying > the airplane." I experienced the same procedure during an aproach at PMI on a CSA IL-62 last year. An ex-F/E of that aircraft told me, that this was actually not a standard procedure, as only senior pilots did this. Strange feeling anyway.... Joerg Boes Palma de Mallorca From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:16 From: Bill Chivers Subject: Re: HS Trident...VC-10 and BOAC References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chivers Consultants In article , elysium writes >North Atlantic routes. The legend went that Vickers envisaged an operating >procedure whereby 2 motors would be shutdown in cruise thereby reducing >fuel burn, but that they were stymied ( not surprisingly ) by the C.A.A. >and that this sounded the commercial death knell for the unarguably >beautiful a/c. Function more important than form everytime, unfortunately Interestingly enough, this technique is employed on the Nimrod, I believe. Bill Chivers From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:16 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Aircraft Evacuation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) wrote: >In article , "P. Wezeman" > wrote: >> Does the FAA require airlines to demonstrate evacuation of airliners >>in every seating configuration that the airline uses? In other words, if >>an airliner wanted to squeeze more seats into an airliner than anyone >>had ever used before, would they have to demonstrate that the new >>configuration would still meet standards for evacuation time with a >>random half of the exits blocked, X% seniors, dummy infants and all >>the other test requirements? > >The short answer is "yes". [but some others say "no".] Maybe we need to clarify this scenario. I was assuming that the air carrier was trying to fly more pax than the aircraft had been *certificated* to, which is admittedly a slightly different from (1) what has been demonstrated with the aircraft, and (2) the maximum number of pax which have actually been flown in service by an air carrier. Perhaps someone could explain the exact methodology used in each of the three cases: (1) more pax than had been certificated, (2) more pax than have been demonstrated, and (3) more pax than had been flown in service, but fewer than certificated/demonstrated. Assuming scenario (1) I have a further question: which FAA region would be responsible for approving the configuration - the region of the aircraft type certificating agency (e.g. Northwest Mountain Region for Boeing), or the region of the air carrier (e.g. Southwest Region for AA) ? Thanks! 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 Fri Aug 1 04:04:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:16 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Aircraft Evacuation and Injuries References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom >The tests are also done in a very controlled manner now, since a >volunteer was paralysed in 1989 whilst participating in an MD-11 >certification test. As I understand it the passenger tripped at the >top of the slide and descended head first. When we introduced the Convair-990 to our "fleet" we had to have the evacuation demonstration. Bad thing about the 990 was the lack of inflatable escape slides. Instead, they had a canvas slide with rope loops one each side at the bottom. The first two passengers out each door were male passengers (preferably) that lowered themselves to the ground via rope. They were then responsible for holding the slide taut for the remaining passengers. We had mattresses placed below the slides to catch anyone that slid off the slide sideways. As luck would have it, it was one of our flight attendents that came off the slide. She landed on her head and injured her neck. Luckily, she only missed the summer's worth of flying before she could go back to work. Years later, I was at the airport that had the first "for real" evacuation of a loaded B747. They got somewhere around a total of 320 people off the plane in less than 90 seconds even with one or two slides INOP. Aside from some ladies, who were flying in dresses or skirts, suffering from burnt butts, the only injury was to a three- or four-month old infant that was held in its mother's arms. Somehow or other, the child got a broken ankle. Lou. From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:16 From: Andrew Weir Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>> At low weights, the aircraft has a tendency to "tiptoe" after >>> landing. I think the A340 needs around 50 tons on the mains ... >>I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Can't help you. :-) >I assume the original question refers to the pressure required >to compress the shock-absorbers and activate the weight-on-wheels >(WOW) switches. What is "tiptoeing" and what, if anything, is wrong with it? From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:16 From: air-admin@chicago.com (Author's name withheld by request) Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In article , Fran=E7ois Airault wrote: >> The gear tilt "toe down" in order to stow more efficiently. This allows >> the main gear well to be shorter, making the cargo holds longer. This is >> goodness since longer cargo holds carry more revenue stuff. A small side >> benefit is that a shorter gear well makes the airplane slightly lighter >> and stiffer. > >Is this a fact, or are you assuming ? My recollection from the type >rating is that the gear is hydraulically (normal) or mechanically >(standby, by the inner doors) untilted while retracting. Looking at the >767 wheel well, it actually seems that the gear is stowed straightened, >with the truck parallel to the centerline. In addition, calling the 767 >main gear "short" and "light" is a rather stem way of putting it. It is >a very complicated design, and the tilted truck is only part of it. I'm >only curious to understand why (ok, VERY curious now that I have done >some digging, to no avail). Gosh, thanks for pointing that out. I had not actually worked that program and this was from a conversation with one of the old(er) guys. I, too, looked up a diagram of the gear stowed and had a talk with a (different) old engineer. As it turns out, the 747 gear (a program I have worked on) stows at an angle. The 767 stows parallel to the keel beam. This is for two reasons, one positive, one negative. Stowing parallel to the keel beam gives a slightly longer gear (going with the rule taller gear is better than shorter gear, all else being equal). Putting the trucks in at an angle would not have shortened the gear well because it would not have been enough to drop a full frame bay. Nothing happens structurally unless it can drop a full frame bay. Caveat: all of this can (and will) change if the size of the tires change significantly. BTW, there is a hydraulic truck tilt actuator on the 767, for those who were wondering. I still stand by my characterization of the 767 gear as relatively light and simple. Look at a B-52's gear if you want to see something really ugly, or one of those commuter tuboprops where the gear retracts into a nacelle. Ick! -- (Author's name withheld by request) From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:17 From: mikeh@zeta.org.au (Michael Hore) Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kralizec Internet, http://www.zeta.org.au/ Whoops, I meant to reply on this before, and forgot... >Could someone explain why the B767 gear is tilted the "wrong" way, i.e. >front wheels down, instead of the seemingly more natural rear wheels >down design like the 747, 777 or A340 ? The landing gear layout is, like everything else, a rather complicated compromise. (I'm only an amateur here, but I've had a long-term interest.) The main gear bogie pivot has to be the "right" distance behind the CG on the ground, but the leg attachment to the wing structure has to be in front of the flaps, and at a position that makes sense structurally. On the 767 (and on a number of other types), this is actually forward of where the bogie pivot needs to be, so there has to be a backward angle on the main gear leg, when the gear is down. Then when retracted, the leg has to be clear of the flaps, and on the 767 this requires a *forward* slant in this position (as Allan.Howard mentioned in his posting). The particular angle of the main gear leg pivot looks after this change of angle in the main gear leg between the retracted and extended position. As Allen also mentioned, the main gear bogie is parallel with the center line when retracted, and there's no special extra positioning applied, so that the bogie is somewhat nose down with respect to the leg. Then when extended, the leg itself has a backward tilt, and this means that the bogie is even more nose-down with respect to a/c level. On the 777, the same layout is used, but as C. Marin Faure mentioned, the bogie is powered into a nose-up position when the gear is extended, which allows a better absorption of landing energy. When the gear retracts, the bogie first tilts into a nose-down position which is similar to the normal 767 position. From photos (I haven't had a chance to see one for real yet), this repositioning happens at the same time as the gear doors open. And Darren Rhodes wrote: >The wheels tilt the 'other' way on the A340/A330 as this helps to spring >the aircraft into the air on rotation. I have heard Airbus claim it saves >100ft or so on the takeoff run. Maybe it makes a difference there (tho 100 ft isn't much), but the main reason for the prominent nose-up positioning on the A330/340 bogies is to better absorb the landing energy, while allowing a stiffer oleo arrangement in the main legs, which will minimize height changes on the ground. When the A330/340 gear retracts, there's a shortening mechanism operating in the leg that also pulls the bogie into a nose-down position with respect to the leg. I think this is mechanical, not hydraulic, and thus operates *during* retraction, not as a separate preliminary movement as on the 777. The gear position when retracted is very similar to the 767 and 777, with the wheels parallel to the a/c c/l. This also, ncidentally, leaves enough room for the center gear on the A340. All these aircraft thus have a main leg which is angled forward when retracted, but backward when extended. This reflects the similar engineering constraints applying to all these types. Cheers, Mike. -- Mike Hore mikeh@zeta.org.au From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:17 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) wrote: > >For the 5th engine which can be installed on the pod under the wings > > To my knowledge, the only time a fifth engine has been added to the B-747 > is during testing of new engine designs; a la B777. In this case, the > fifth engine can be and is used during flight. This is not really correct. We have used 747s to test engines for the 767 and 777, but the test engine is simply put in place of the 747's number two or three engine. The airplane is not stressed, plumbed, or wired for an operational fifth pylon and engine. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:17 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > In article Merlin Dorfman, > dorfman@netcom.com writes: > > It's been a long time since I took thermodynamics, but if I recall > >correctly after all these years, the pressure of any gas will increase > >linearly with the absolute temperature if confined to a fixed volume. > > What about the 737? During cruise, the tires are exposed to the outside > environment. Don't they get very cold, and lose pressure? I'm not an engineer so I'm not qualified to get involved in the discussion about the relative properties of air vs. nitrogren. But the wheel wells of all commercial jetliners, well, all Boeings at least, are not pressurized or heated. So I suspect that the tires in closed wells are not much warmer than the exposed tires on the 737. And as the tires on the 737 are tucked up inside wells, I suspect they are not exposed to a direct, supercooling airflow which would cause drag. So the only difference between the temperature of a 737 tire and a 757 tire is whatever affect the relatively thin and unisulated gear door on the 757 might produce. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:17 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Gary Welch (garywelch@flex.net) wrote: [snip] : Nitrogen is somewhat lighter than oxygen. The difference may seem trivial : but I've read that the air in the tires of a 747 weighs in the 100s of : pounds (I've heard of Helium being used in some aircraft). I'm surprised if ordinary rubber tires will hold helium, which diffuses pretty easily. Aren't the shells of blimps treated to prevent this? -- Gerry From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:17 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM) wrote: : For testing, the engine being tested almost always replaces one of the : standard engines. This was certainly true for GE's 747-100 engine : testbed, used to flight test the GE-90, and for the original 747-100 : which Boeing used to flight test the 777's other PW and RR engines. On which wingstation is the new engine mounted? Those GE-90s windmills are huge! : To do otherwise would require substantial structural modifications -- : in these cases, an engine with substantially greater thrust than the : original engines was being tested, and you couldn't just stick that : on the wing at any old place. : There are probably several counter-examples, but the only one I can : think of is a 720 (or maybe a 707) that PWC used to flight test small : engines. In this case, the test engine was mounted near the nose of : the plane. On the (suitably-modified) cargo-door. Looking at other odd engine additions, the Vulcan bombers with a retractable pod housing the Bristol Olympus must be amongst the oddest. This engine was meant for the BAC TSR-2 and Concorde. -- Filip De Vos The idea that space travel is inherently enormously expensive is fraudulent. FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be John S. Lewis From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:17 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >: For testing, the engine being tested almost always replaces one of the >: standard engines. This was certainly true for GE's 747-100 engine >: testbed, used to flight test the GE-90, and for the original 747-100 >: which Boeing used to flight test the 777's other PW and RR engines. >On which wingstation is the new engine mounted? Those GE-90s windmills >are huge! Both testbeds used the #2 pylon for the test engine. The GE-90 is clearly snuggled up very close under the wing, using a special pylon which is not unlike the one used on the 737-300 to get the engine as close to the wing as possible. The PW4084 looks like a reasonably standard pylon in comparison. I'm pretty sure the B-52 used to flight test the JT9D had the test engine on the opposite side -- on the #3 pylon, that is, the inboard pylon on the starboard side where the #5 and #6 engines would normally be. Getting back to the GE-90, putting it on in outboard position (#1 or #4) would have given them more clearance, but hanging the heavier engine that far out on the wing might be a problem. So might having over twice as much thrust that far from the aircraft centerline. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:17 From: "matt weber" Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Gary Welch wrote in article ... > Merlin Dorfman wrote in article > ... > > Jay Biederman (jbb@seanet.com) wrote: > > : Actually the tires are inflated with nitrogen gas. This is because the > > : tire pressure stays fairly constant over large variations in > > : temperature... > > > > It's been a long time since I took thermodynamics, but if I recall > > correctly after all these years, the pressure of any gas will increase > > linearly with the absolute temperature if confined to a fixed volume. > > Nitrogen is somewhat lighter than oxygen. The difference may seem trivial > but I've read that the air in the tires of a 747 weighs in the 100s of > pounds (I've heard of Helium being used in some aircraft). The main reason > for using nitrogen is probably that it's less reactive than oxygen and thus > less likely to affect the rubber at high temperatures. The difference in weight between Nitrogen and air is trivial, air is 80% nitrogen, most of the rest is oxygen, which is only about 10% heavier. As for the air in the tires weighing hundreds of pounds, not likely. At normal temperatures and temperature, 22 liters of Nitrogen weighs about 28 grams. 1 pound =454 grams, 1 lb = 90 gallons of air. 100 pounds = 9,000 gallons of air. I have a hard time believing there is 100 pounds of air even in a full set of 747 tires. It certainly isn't going to be hundreds of pounds. You are however correct, tire casing on aircraft are retreaded many times, so it is desirable to keep the casing in as good shape as possible. The use of Nitrogen prevents the casing from oxidizing on the inside. Don't care much about the outside because you re-tread it anyway. From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:17 From: dqc@aol.com (DQC) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > When the 5th engine is installed, it is inactive - it gets no fuel. To >prevent the engine from windmilling, which is a very high drag state, a >special inlet is fitted to change the inlet area and hence, massflow. I've installed several "5th pods." Actually, the fan blades are all removed and a large mushroom shaped dome is attached which "locks" the (bladeless) fan hub and thereby the low compressor/turbine module preventing rotation, and fairs the now blunted inlet. In addition, a cone shaped "plug" is attached to the exhaust "tailpipe" and attached via a smaller cap at the end of the "tailplug." Together these fixtures close off the inlet to the "core" (or "hot-stream") section of the engine, close the exhaust nozzle and provide the best anti-drag fairing for the installation. Joe W, TWA Ret. From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:18 From: "Michel Gammon" Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sympatico shumaker@eisner.decus.org wrote in article ... > The most common reason for using nitrogen for tire inflation where the > pressure must remain constant or at least predictable for wide > temperature variations (e.g.: racing car tires which routinely exceed > 180 F tread temperature) is that bottled nitrogen is _dry_. It's the > water and water vapor that cause wild pressure increases with > temperature; any dry gas would work as well. Nitrogen happens to > be widely available and cheap. As a chemist I dispute this. Gas volume when uncontained or gas pressure when contained is directly related to temperature. That is why you are always admonished to check tire pressures on your car when they are cold, for reproducible accuracy. Water is a liquid and therefore will not be subjected to the same rules and also is incompressible. Water vapour is microscopic liquid water droplets, and steam is water in the gaseous phase. My guess for the reason for nitrogen instead of air is that nitrogen is inert. During an emergency stop before V1 when maximum braking is used, I suspect the internal tire temperatures can get very high (the external surface will at least be afforded some air cooling, while the gas in the tire will be insulated from external air and thus will not be cooled). I suspect that if air is used to fill the tires, the internal temperature of the tire can theoretically exceed the auto-ignition temperature of the rubber, thus igniting the tire and causing a catastrophic failure (which often occur anyway probably as the pressure limit on the tire is exceeded). Nitrogen does not support combustion. Furthermore, there is a small possibility that in a wheel well fire caused by overheated brakes or failure of another tire at rotation, the other tires may burst from the fire flooding the wheel well with nitrogen and helping to douse the fire. At least in theory, but the crash of a Nationair DC-8 in Saudi Arabia a few years back was attributed to a wheel well fire caused by a burst tire during the takeoff run (before V1 too, they should have aborted). The gas laws apply to all gases. Mike Gammon From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:18 From: tbenz@halcyon.com (Tom Benedict) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. > In article , jbb@seanet.com wrote: > > Actually the tires are inflated with nitrogen gas. This is because the > > tire pressure stays fairly constant over large variations in > > temperature. Also, if I remember correctly, the tires are inflated to > > around 140 PSI. It's my understanding that nitrogen was use to reduce the chances for fire in the wheelwell. Long taxi/take-of rolls can get those brakes pretty hot. Tom Benedict tbenz@halcyon.com From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:18 From: Paul Saccani Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Malaya Reply-To: paul.saccani@online.po.my Gary Welch wrote: > Nitrogen is somewhat lighter than oxygen. The difference may seem trivial > but I've read that the air in the tires of a 747 weighs in the 100s of > pounds . The main reason > for using nitrogen is probably that it's less reactive than oxygen and thus > less likely to affect the rubber at high temperatures. AFAIK, the principle reason for the adoption of N2 inflation of A/C tires was to prevent the occurance of fire after the bursting of overheated tyres. A number of fatal airliner fires would *not* have occured if N2 was used instead of air. High presure N2 qeunches fires, whilst HP air accelerates them. cheers From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:18 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Karl Swartz wrote: > There are probably several counter-examples, but the only one I can > think of is a 720 (or maybe a 707) that PWC used to flight test small > engines. In this case, the test engine was mounted near the nose of > the plane. P&WC's airplane is a Boeing 720. It can test turboprops on the nose, small turbofans on a pylon off the right side of the forward fuselage and larger turbofans (V2500 sized) at the #3 spot. Their aircraft is an old MEA aircraft, complete with patched bullet holes, earned during the Lebanese civil war. Allied Signal (the old Garrett folks) also have a 720 they use to test turbofans and turboprops. It has a pylon mounted on the forward fuselage. GE does their testing on an old 747-100 and a 707. The GE90 was tested on this 747, but the PW4000 and RR Trent for the 777 were tested on the #1 747, leased back by Boeing from the Museum of Flight. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:19 From: "Michel Gammon" Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sympatico JWizardC wrote in article ... > >For the 5th engine which can be installed on the pod under the wings > > To my knowledge, the only time a fifth engine has been added to the B-747 > is during testing of new engine designs; a la B777. In this case, the > fifth engine can be and is used during flight. The 5th engine (non-operational) is a standard method of ferrying engines on the 747. The Air India 747 which crashed in 1985 off Ireland was carrying a 5th engine. Mike Gammon From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:19 From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nobody but me In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >There are probably several counter-examples, but the only one I can >think of is a 720 (or maybe a 707) that PWC used to flight test small >engines. In this case, the test engine was mounted near the nose of >the plane. The Dash 80 also carried a 5th engine to support the 727 program. The JT8 was mounted just in front of the aft starbord cabin door, with an "S" shaped exhaust duct to deflect the exhaust around the stabilizer. From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:19 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The Dash 80 also carried a 5th engine to support the 727 program. >The JT8 was mounted just in front of the aft starbord cabin door ... Ok, that's how the JT8D was flight tested. The JT9D was flight tested on a B-52 and the RB.211 was flight tested on the port pylon of a VC-10. How was the CF6 flight tested? Perhaps on a C-5A, from whose TF-39 engines the CF6 was developed? On what, then, were the TF-39 engines flight tested? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:19 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: More on FedEx MD-11 crash at Newark References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >FedEx flight 14, operating TPE-ANC-EWR, crashed today (July 31) at >approximately 1:35 am EST while landing on Newark's runway 29. Flight 14's full itinerary was SIN-PEN-TPE-ANC-EWR, and that's 1:35 am EDT, not EST. >The other two runways at EWR were open for departures only by 8 am, >and for arrivals by 11:30 am. The airport officially re-opened for limited departures at 7:33 am. >At least one witness reported seeing flames coming from the aircraft >before it landed and flipped on its back. A small part of the cargo >consisted of hazardous materials -- less than 400 pounds out of a >total of 125,000 pounds ... CNN is saying the payload was 167,000 lbs. FedEx's press report on the accident, presumably the most authoritative source, says 145,000 lbs. With regard to the hazardous materials, FedEx described them as being routine. Firefighters reportedly observed nothing more hazardous than pharmaceuticals and cosmetics -- any sort of aerosol could be classed as a hazardous material, for example. The NTSB's John Goglia said some of the hazardous material consisted of perfume. According to Robert Boyle, executive directory of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the airport, the pilots did not declare an emergency or otherwise signal any sort of problem prior to the crash. It's sounding like hazardous materials were not an issue despite the earlier reports. Both of the flight recorders were recovered relatively unscathed, despite the fire, and the NTSB plans to interview the flight crew on Friday, so preliminary details of the sequence of events should be available quickly. The accident aircraft was N611FE (msn 48604 / ln 553), ordered new by FedEx and delivered on August 22, 1993. CNN and the Wall St. Journal both reported that the aircraft was involved in a hard landing and tail strike at ANC on November 4, 1994 (NTSB accident ANC95A008). CNN also reported an emergency landing in October 1993 after the crew discovered that one of the engines was "loose" (how would one discover that in flight?!), and another emergency landing in January 1995 after a false warning indication of a malfunction of the flaps on the left wing. There's no evidence that any of these incidents were connected to the crash at Newark. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:19 From: Robert Carpenter Subject: FedEx Hull Losses Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via CAIS Internet Reply-To: rcarpen@LAN2WAN.COM The AP news stories about the MD-11 loss at EWR quote FedEx as saying that this is their first crash in 25 years of operation. I thought that they have lost almost 5% of their Cessna Caravan fleet. Am I wrong? Bob Carpenter From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:19 From: "PFAFFENBERGER, SIEGFRIED" Subject: explosion suppression systems Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable i remember that in the late 60's airplanes like the boeing 707 and 720B, maybe also the 727 were equipped with an explosion suppression system manufactured by a company with the name fenwal or similar. The system sensed the onset of an explosion (early flame front) and reacted supposedly fast enough to prevent further progress by triggering a cartridge with a chemical inerting the surrounding air due to its strong affinity to oxygen. the system was definitely much cheaper and lighter than any of the systems discussed now for retrofit in connection with twa 800. This system apparently is no longer used. does anyone know for what reason? was there a basic flaw? From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:19 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: B737 flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Let us not forget Mr. Coffin's corner; That is to say, that area of the flight envelope where high-speed buffet meets low-speed buffet. Also, since flaps add much drag to the wing, it is possible to get behind the power curve and into a place where there isn't enough engine power to increase speed - you have to give up some altitude to get it. TheFNG From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:20 From: "Jose Gayo" Subject: Re: B737 flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unisource Espana NEWS SERVER Flaps above 20.000 ft can produce buffet, this is the only reason in manuals From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:20 From: "François Airault" Subject: Re: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Air France Reply-To: fairault@compuserve.com Ian McAndrew wrote: > In that the comment was made that the majority of Russian pilots > are ex-military and it is a matter of pride NOT to use the ILS. I agree, from personal experience as an ATC controller and now an airline pilot. They tend to shoot ILS approaches at major international airports--like anyone else--but sometimes they don't take it the easy way in less crowded places like LIPK. Francois- From kls Fri Aug 1 04:04:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.ifr,eunet.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Aug 97 04:04:20 From: "William Caefer" Subject: Re: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sunrise Software Riccardo Romagnoli wrote in article ... >Living in the vicinity of one airport (Forli'/LIPK), I have noticed that >ALL Russians charters (TUPOLEV/ANTONOV etc.) ALWAYS made VISUAL approach >and landings (even if the runway is ILS CAT2 equipped). Once a pilot reports that he can see the airport, controllers will respond with "Cleared for visual approach" This gives the pilot the option. This doesn't mean that the pilot abandons the ILS however. ie: he doesn't turn off the radio or ignore it. The needles are there for guidance while visually approaching the runway. Also, maybe because visual approaches take less time and effort. This saves the airline money. As always with the Russians... who knows? Actually, if I lived as close to the only real source of the answer as you do (ie: Russian pilots) I'd try to stroll on over to the airport and ask a couple of them some questions about how they fly and procedures for their airlines. All pilots like to talk about flying after all. :) From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:12 From: Jishnu Mukerji Subject: Re: FedEx MD-11 crash at Newark References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Reply-To: jis@garden.net Karl Swartz wrote: > FedEx flight 14, operating TPE-ANC-EWR, crashed today (July 31) at > approximately 1:35 am EST while landing on Newark's runway 29. The > initial impact was only 200 yards from Terminal B, and the burning > wreckage blocked the runway, EWR's shortest. The other two runways > at EWR were open for departures only by 8 am, and for arrivals by > 11:30 am. Hmmm. Runway 29 does not come anywhere near 200yds of Terminal B. I thought the crash was on runway 22R (which is indeed that close to Terminal B), and the plane slid off the runway headed in the direction of Terminal B according to a radio news report. Even this morning runaway 22R was closed, not runway 29. Indeed runway 29 is the shortest in EWR. Runway 22R is the next shortest. Runway 22L/4R is the longest. Of course my information is based entirely on radio news reports, which I'll admit are not exactly the fonts of accuracy. Jishnu Mukerji jis@garden.net From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:12 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FedEx MD-11 crash at Newark References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> FedEx flight 14, operating TPE-ANC-EWR, crashed today (July 31) at >> approximately 1:35 am EST while landing on Newark's runway 29. The >> initial impact was only 200 yards from Terminal B ... >Hmmm. Runway 29 does not come anywhere near 200yds of Terminal B. I >thought the crash was on runway 22R (which is indeed that close to >Terminal B), and the plane slid off the runway headed in the direction >of Terminal B according to a radio news report. Several other people who were actually at Newark said the same. Unfortunately, I didn't do a sanity check on this part of the report. Had I done so, it would have been obvious that runway 29 didn't fit the rest of the details. (I wondered, too, since I didn't think it was used very often, at least not for large stuff, but the odd hour of the FedEx arrival dampened my suspicions.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:13 From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: Re: Q:FedEx B737? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Also, N206FE (#21959) was used and is now with Alaska Airlines. FedEx disposed of all 737s by October 1981, using them for only for about 3 years. What's even more interesting is that FedEx toyed around with the idea of carrying passengers during the day around that time. (Packages at night, passengers during the day). This idea seemed more feasible back in 1980 since most of the fleet was parked during the day anyway (not true today!). From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:13 From: bbost0325@aol.com (BBost0325) Subject: Re: FedEx Hull Losses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com FedEx owns the Caravans, but does not fly them. They are leased out to other outfits that fly them with their own pilots (but still flying FedEx packages). When a Caravan crashes, it involves another airline's pilots, not FedEx's. Incidentally, this crash is the first hull loss of an MD-11. From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:13 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Andrew Muir (amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net) wrote: : The biggest problem with the -200 conversion is finding suitable aircraft : on the market. There is talk that we will soon start converting -300s, though : I doubt that we'll shorten the hump. We may also start to see 767s for : conversion. : The biggest advantage of the -400F (or factory built -2/300F) over a converted ^^^^ (I know of no 300Fs) Doesn't the 400F also have the top deck removed aft of the door? I recall earlier discussion here on the NG about how a converted Classic was damaged when handlers attempted to move a pallet forward, but the load banged onto the upper deck. : -2/300 (besides the lift ability) is the nose door. We do not install the : swing nose on the converted aircraft. I read in Flight International (30 April-6 May )that KLM is to convert 747-200 SUD (747-200 converted to 300 standard, with Stretched Upper Deck). The mod involves shortening the upper deck. I do not know how pilots are going to get into the cockpit, the SUD has a gull-wing door halfway on both sides. I suppose upper deck the door of the Classic is going to be fitted. The A/C are to be converted by Boeing in Wichita, Bedek Aviation of Israel lost out due to not having the capacity ready in time. The bill is $48 million for two conversions. What is the price of a new 747-400F? $140 million? And in a final question, the 747-100F and 200F used to be delivered with a cargolift that was stowed in the underside of the nose. The gear could be removed, yielding 7 ton of cargo capacity! So big cargo airlines that operate sheduled services like Lufthansa between Frankfurt and New York removed it, and simply stored handling equipment on their terminals. I recall reading something about the gear being eliminated from the 747-400F altogether, but am not sure. (all this from possibly faulty memory, corrections wellcome) -- Filip De Vos The idea that space travel is inherently enormously expensive is fraudulent. FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be John S. Lewis From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:13 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >: The biggest advantage of the -400F (or factory built -2/300F) over a converted > ^^^^ >(I know of no 300Fs) There were none. No reason, since the only difference between late -200s and -300s was the longer upper deck on the -300, which was just for passenger capacity. (Earlier -200s had lower weights.) >Doesn't the 400F also have the top deck removed aft of the door? Its upper deck has the same, or very similar, exterior dimensions as the original -100 and -200, but it's quite different structurally. >I read in Flight International (30 April-6 May )that KLM is to convert >747-200 SUD (747-200 converted to 300 standard, with Stretched Upper >Deck). You're most probably correct, since KLM has only three -300s while they have ten -200s (seven which, like the -300s, have side cargo doors). However, I've heard that converted -200s are "officially" known as -200SUDs, while the planes built with the extended upper deck were known as -200EUDs until Boeing retroactively created the -300 designation. I have no idea how official this really is, but wouldn't be at all surprised to see the terms mixed up quite often. One exception is the two 747-100B(SR/SUD) aircraft, which appear to have been built with the larger upper deck but nevertheless got the SUD designation -- indicating a conversion -- and not the EUD tag of a plane built with the big hump. >The mod involves shortening the upper deck. Very interesting. I'm a little bit surprised that they'd go to that much effort. >I do not know how pilots are going to get into the cockpit, the SUD >has a gull-wing door halfway on both sides. As noted in this group before, crews usually board 747 freighters via the main deck, and use drop-down steps or ladders to access the upper deck. The only reason for the upper deck door is for emergencies, and I'd guess they'd include that door as part of the conversion. >The bill is $48 million for two conversions. What is the price of a new >747-400F? $140 million? Boeing's web page (http://www.boeing.com/) has the 1997 list price of a 747-400 as $156 to $174 million. Nothing specific to a freghter, but I'd expect it to be near the low end of that range. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:14 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > Winglets are a compromise, used to improve the efficiency of an existing > > or flawed wing design. If you have the opportunity to design a wing from > > scratch and you get it right, as was done with the 777 and the New > > Generation 737 family, there is no reason to install winglets. While they k_ish wrote: > Also, the efficiency improvement from winglets is only fully realized at > high altitude sustained cruise. Although winglets yield an efficiency > increase at any altitude/airspeed, this improvement does not offset the > weight and manufacturing penalties C. Marin describes. What about the other extreme of the 747-400, the Canadair Regional jet (flying skidoo). It is designed for short hops, yet has winglets. Is this because Canadair didn't build the wing from scratch, using designs from its Challenger programme ? Or are the winglets on the CRJ purely for manoeuvrability/smooth ride purposes ? (do they make a difference ?) From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.ifr,eunet.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:14 From: jhilt@online.no.remove (John Hilt) Subject: Re: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: Telenor Online Public Access On 01 Aug 97 04:04:20 , "William Caefer" wrote: >Also, maybe because visual approaches take less time and effort. This >saves the airline money. A relatively early descent gives the most fuel efficient approach for jet airliners. Not always allowed by ATC due to other traffic, but all this happens some time before having the field in sight and approaching the outer marker, intercepting or "ignoring" the ILS. >Actually, if I lived as close to the only real source of the answer as you >do (ie: Russian pilots) I'd try to stroll on over to the airport and ask a >couple of them some questions about how they fly and procedures for their >airlines. All pilots like to talk about flying after all. :) I've tried talking to them, but they're only interested in what they can bring home for free. Like worn-out car tyres, food and live chickens. :-) -- -[ jhilt=AEonline.no ]- From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:14 From: Mark Taylor Subject: Bomb scare frequency Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: remove the .REMOVE.THIS to reply Reply-To: marktaylor@worldnet.att.net.REMOVE.THIS For the second time in less than 24 hours, there has been a bomb scare aboard an airliner here in the Dallas area. Yesterday's was on a DAL-Houston Southwest 737 and that aircraft was delayed four hours. On taxi from the gate for takeoff, a passenger noticed a note in the seatback pocket saying that there was a bomb in the cargo bin. Nothing was found. Today, a Delta MD-90 arriving from PHX suffered a bomb scare when a passenger found a five page written note in the inflight magazine. It landed safely and only a few passengers were injured during the subsequent evacuation. Nothing was found on this aircraft either. These two incidents made me wonder just how often these type of events happen around the world. I don't hear of them too often but that doesn't mean that they didn't happen. Can anybody shed any light on this subject? From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:15 From: probbe@mail.dotcom.fr (Patrick Robbe) Subject: Re: Aileron control on Airbus References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: probbe@mail.dotcom.fr On 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 , Seth Dillon wrote: >> On a flight to Italy recently, my first on an Airbus, I was looking at >> the wing and it appeared to me that there were no conventional ailerons. >> There was a control surface close to the fuselage which showed a lot of >> activity during the approach but only in a downward direction (on my >> side - I assume there was a matching one doing the same on the other >> side :-) >> At no time did it move up and from the look of it I don't think it was >> possible anyway. The impression I got was that turns were initiated by >> increasing lift on the wing at the outside of the turn without a >> matching aileron decreasing lift on the inside wing. > >My only experience is with the A310. On that aircraft there is an >inboard "all speed" aileron on each wing and flight and ground >spoilers. There is no conventional outboard spoiler as on Most other >large transports. On the A320, the roll guidance in made with two ailerons located at the end of each wing's trailing edge, and by the use of spoilers located on the top of the wings, closer to the fuselage than the ailerons. There are 5 pairs of spoilers, amongst which only the 4 outboard ones are used for roll control. The flaps (trailing edge) and slats (leading edge), which extend downward, are not use for roll control, but only to increase the wings surface (to allow the aircraft to fly at lower speeds). When every aileron and spoiler fails, you can still control the aircraft with the roll induced from the rudder, but that's another story... ;-) Here's a little drawing of the A320 flight controls... Sorry it's very poor but at least it's ascii! | Nose ^ | |---|---|---|---|---| | | | Slats -> | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | | | |----------------------------------------| |-- | Spoilers | | | | |---|---|---|---|---| | | | -> | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | | Aircraft Fuselage | |-----|-----| |---|---|---|---|---| | | | 2 | 1 | <- Ailerons | | |-----|-----|----------------------------| | |-- Flaps -> | 2 | 1 | | Tail v | |-----------|----------| | | The drawing is not to scale, and shows only the left wing of the aircraft, but you should be able nevertheless to recognize those flight controls on the aircraft next time you fly on A320! ;-) As for other Airbus aircrafts (300/310/330/340) I don't know them so I can't tell. But the 319/321 is much like the 320. I hope this helps... Friendly yours, Patrick Robbe From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:15 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles 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 > elberfeld@sprintmail.com wrote: >>An earlier reply to my posting quoted an "Airliners" magazine article >>which mentioned that Sterling did, in fact, fly a CPH-KEF-YQX-OMA-SFO >>(whew)service in 1970. It did not say how long this service lasted. For what its worth I recall seeing a Transavia Caravelle at Gander in 1976. -- -Niels From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:15 From: Stuart Feigin Subject: Re: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Corp. Reply-To: sfeigin@us.oracle.com elberfeld@sprintmail.com wrote: > > An earlier reply to my posting quoted an "Airliners" magazine article > which mentioned that Sterling did, in fact, fly a CPH-KEF-YQX-OMA-SFO > (whew)service in 1970. It did not say how long this service lasted. > Sterling was no stranger to long, multi-stop charters with Caravelles > during this time period. Their crash in Dubai in 1972 was of a > Colombo (Sri Lanka) to CPH flight. That's (roughly) about as far > as from CPH to SFO, but with less overwater flying. Either way, that's > a long haul on a Caravelle, cheap charter fare notwithstanding. For those who have never been in a Caravelle, let me tell you that that flight would have been unbearable. The longest Caravelle flight I was on was Oslo-Paris, and I had trouble standing up for a day. Try to imagine an airliner built like Disney builds Main Street, an exact, 5/8 size replica of a real airliner. -- Stuart Feigin Oracle Corp. Truckee, CA USA Nothing I say represents the revealed wisdom of Oracle Corporation. Larry does that. From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:15 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: An 24 V References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Marc Schaeffer wrote: > > This post is related to the high performance version of the Antonov 24 > called 24V. I read that it has an auxilary turbojet engine in the right > engine nacelle rated at 8kN. The same engine is also used on the An26. Yup...very odd! just looked it up in Janes World Aircraft Recognition Handbook, and the single starbord jet it indeed mentioned. Its also used on the AN 30. > - Is this a unique way to enhance performance of a turboprop ? Unique in using an "add-on" jet to boost performance? Not unique but rare. I guess the best example I can think of is the B-36, which was piston-powered but did use 4 podded jets to boost takeoff/climb performance (and increase top speed in certain situations). The recent discussion on the Trident also pointed out its use of a booster jet. I think the Antonov use of a *single* jet on one side of the A/C is probably unique though. Probably made takeoff procedures interesting... > - Was this choice caused by a lack of more powerful engines ? Probably, but just a guess. The later AN-32 which had more powerful turboprops does not appear to have had the booster jet as did the AN 24, 26, and 30. > - Is there a picture and/or technical description of this particular > feature on the WWW ? Don't know about the web... the pictures in Janes make it apparent that the jet is well-concealed in the nacelle. About the only distinguishing feature is that teh starbor nacelle has a blunt trailing edge profile, while the port nacelle is rounded. As a side note, Janes refers to this auxiliary jet being used "for engine starting..." (like an APU, I suppose) and "... to boost takeoff/climb performance in event of engine failure..." -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.space.tech,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:16 From: bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu Subject: UCLA short course on CNS/ATM Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Los Angeles On September 22-25, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Satellite-Based Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance for Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM)", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Mr. Cary R. Spitzer, MS, President, AvioniCon, Inc.; Mr. Wayne Aleshire, Captain, United Airlines; Mr. Michael J. Morgan, Honeywell; and Mr. Roy T. Oishi, ARINC, Inc. After a decade of work by the Future Air Navigation Systems committees of the United Nations-affiliated International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the aviation industry is implementing satellite-based communications, navigation, and surveillance for air traffic management (CNS/ATM) on a global basis. CNS/ATM promises substantial increases in airspace system capacity and benefits to both aircraft operators and air traffic services providers. This course begins with a review of avionics concepts to ensure a solid foundation for subsequent material. The rest of the course traces the development of the CNS/ATM concept, introduces its underlying principles, and presents each of the three cornerstone technologies--communications, navigation, and surveillance--from an airborne perspective. These technologies are discussed in detail by experts who contributed to the design and development of the avionics intended to reap CNS/ATM benefits which are now being installed on many aircraft. The course concludes with a summary of real-world experience by a major airline that has already equipped some of its fleet with first-generation CNS/ATM systems. This course is intended as an introduction to CNS/ATM. The level of detail presented makes the course suitable for a broad range of career backgrounds including technology (both air- and ground-based aviation systems), business development, and technical management. The course fee is $1395, which includes extensive course materials. These notes are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:16 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Karl Swartz wrote: > > >The Dash 80 also carried a 5th engine to support the 727 program. > >The JT8 was mounted just in front of the aft starbord cabin door ... > > Ok, that's how the JT8D was flight tested. Errrr.. Was it?!? I thought that the engine flown in that location was just a JT3D (or maybe even a J-57), mounted there by Boeing to investigate the effects of applying thrust at that location on the airframe. I could easily be wrong, but it seems to me that the ridiculous tailpipe (ever seen a picture of it? Its good for a laugh or two!) would have completely invalidated any realistic in-flight testing of a new powerplant like the JT8D. One couldn't even argue that it simulated the S-duct of a 727 since that is on the inlet side of things. > The JT9D was flight tested > on a B-52 and the RB.211 was flight tested on the port pylon of a > VC-10. How was the CF6 flight tested? Perhaps on a C-5A, from whose > TF-39 engines the CF6 was developed? On what, then, were the TF-39 > engines flight tested? Good questions which I'd never thought to ask... since the TF-39 was a military development, I could envision it having been flown on a B-52 also, but I'd like to hear a definitive answer. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:16 From: k_ish Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Michel Gammon wrote: > > My guess for the reason for nitrogen instead of air is that nitrogen is > inert. During an emergency stop before V1 when maximum braking is used, I > suspect the internal tire temperatures can get very high (the external > surface will at least be afforded some air cooling, while the gas in the > tire will be insulated from external air and thus will not be cooled). > > Mike Gammon In the PBS TV series and book "Twentieth-Century Jet" (about the 777 development program), there is a segment (photo in the book) about test flights. One test involved ballasting the aircraft to MTOW, accelerating to V1, then doing a maximum-performance stop. IIRC, this dissipated approximately 1.5 billion foot-pounds into the braking system. On the TV segment, the brake disks are glow orange-hot, and the tires start to burn. The aircraft then had to remain in place for 5 minutes (simulated crash crew response time) before any attempt to extinguish the fire was made. The idea was to demonstrate that the fire would not spread. So yes, the brakes can heat the tires to very high temperatures. The rims usually contain fuseplugs to deflate the tire in a non-catastrophic way. Lastly, in the book "727 Scrapbook" by Len Morgan, there is a chapter on a Braniff 727 where a dragging brake overheated a tire. It exploded after retraction, and blew off the gear doors and a large hole in the top of the wing. The aircraft made a safe landing. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:16 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >So yes, the brakes can heat the tires to very high temperatures. The >rims usually contain fuseplugs to deflate the tire in a non-catastrophic >way. And can sometimes do so well after the landing. A few years ago I was flying ORD-SFO on a 747-100. It developed a flat tire while sitting at the gate. While talking with the captain, he suggested it might have been due to the fuseplug blowing after two relatively quick landings -- the plane had flown MAD-IAD-ORD. >Lastly, in the book "727 Scrapbook" by Len Morgan, there is a chapter on >a Braniff 727 where a dragging brake overheated a tire. It exploded >after retraction, and blew off the gear doors and a large hole in the >top of the wing. The aircraft made a safe landing. Another example is Swissair 306, a Caravelle III flying ZRH-GVA-FCO on Septmeber 4, 1963. Unfortunately, it wasn't so lucky -- one tire/wheel disintigrated and caught fire prior to takeoff after prolonged ground manuvering and braking, and another apparently exploded after takeoff. 80 people died in the ensuing crash. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:16 From: Matthew Kranz Subject: MD-11 Landing/Flare Behavior Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: kranz@sprintmail.com Hi, all... Thursday morning's crash of the FedEx MD-11 in Newark has prompted me to pose a question to the group. Does the MD-11 have less-than-optimum flare and landing characteristics? In addition to FedEx's crash (and previous hard landing) of N611FE, I saw a Delta MD-11 make an arrival (I wouldn't call it a landing ) at CVG a few months ago that was obviously quite hard. The plane touched down heavily somewhere between the threshold and the 500-foot mark after little or no flare, and bounced 5-10 feet in the air before touching down again. While this little collection of facts is by no means a scientific conclusion, it has got me thinking. Can any MD-11 pilots throw their $0.02 in? --Matt Kranz --727 F/E From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:17 From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: Aircraft Evacuation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nobody but me In article , ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) wrote: >In article , ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) wrote: >Perhaps someone could explain the exact methodology used in each of the three >cases: (1) more pax than had been certificated, Doesn't happen. The airplane manufacturer has to demonstrate evacuation of the maximum number of passengers to be certified for the type. The manufacturer holds the type certificate, not the airline/owner. >(2) more pax than have been demonstrated Can't certify more than has been demonstrated. >, and (3) more pax than had been flown in service, but fewer than >certificated/demonstrated. Airline can do as it pleases as long as exits are not blocked and the aisles are not reduced beyond a certain width. >Assuming scenario (1) I have a further question: which FAA region would be >responsible for approving the configuration - the region of the aircraft type >certificating agency (e.g. Northwest Mountain Region for Boeing), or the >region of the air carrier (e.g. Southwest Region for AA) ? The region that covers the type certificate holder (eg the manufacturer). From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:17 From: Antoin Daltun Subject: Re: HS Trident...VC-10 and BOAC References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 04:04 01/08/97, you wrote: >In article , elysium > writes > >>North Atlantic routes. The legend went that Vickers envisaged an operating >>procedure whereby 2 motors would be shutdown in cruise thereby reducing >>fuel burn ... >Interestingly enough, this technique is employed on the Nimrod, I >believe. In early brochures for the turbo-prop Viscount, a similar procedure was suggested for the holding pattern. This was due to undeveloped engines with high fuel consumption and to expected severe range limitations. The problem was resolved well before the aircraft went into service (or secured any orders?) Antoin Daltun From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:17 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Koos Zwaanenburg wrote: > > tgg@hpl.hp.com.NOSPAM wrote: > >Can anybody confirm or deny this quote: > > > > " The defunct and unlamented Trident was unique in that reverse > > thrust was selected before the aircraft touched down and the aircraft > > could b elowered onto the runway by its judicious application. As > Since then I have > asked a number of people "in the know" if you can apply thrust reversers > in flight. This question also figured prominently after the Lauda Air 767 > crash over Thailand(?) I always got the same answer, that brakes and thrust > reversers are disabled until the aircraft is rolling down the runway, > which is determined by the weight-on-wheels(WOW) logic in the landing > gears. While it is common for thrust reverse to be disabled in flight, its not always the case. Most military transports have the ability to reverse in flight allowing a very fast and steep descent (less time to be shot at when landing in less-than-friendly territory!). Also, besides the Trident, there have been other civil airliners with "reverse in flight" capability. Perhaps the best known of these is the DC-8. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:17 From: nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On 01 Aug 97 04:04:15 , Koos Zwaanenburg wrote: >tgg@hpl.hp.com.NOSPAM wrote: >>Can anybody confirm or deny this quote: >> " The defunct and unlamented Trident was unique in that reverse >> thrust was selected before the aircraft touched down and the aircraft >> could b elowered onto the runway by its judicious application. >I have asked a number of people "in the know" if you can apply thrust >reversers in flight. I always got the same answer, that brakes and thrust >reversers are disabled until the aircraft is rolling down the runway, You never asked the right people. ;) Some DC-8's have the ability to deploy their inboard thrust reversers in flight, acting as speed brakes. I don't think they were ever intended for use just prior to landing. Of course, the F-28, too, as standard practice, deployed its tail-mounted speed brakes on short final. Neil - nw@ix.netcom.com From kls Sun Aug 3 02:50:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Aug 97 02:50:18 From: "Mark E. Ingram" Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 31 Jul 1997, Karl Swartz wrote: > > I then started asking around and finally dug up a DC-10-30 flight > >manual. It turns out that the flight engineer can isolate the centre > >gear (i.e. keep it retracted). > >The benefit is an increase in climb-limited landing weight Another *potential* benefit - seldom realized - is to keep the center gear retracted during a landing at an airport that bases its landing fees on the number of wheels (or gear). Narita comes to mind as one such airport that might have operated this way (at least in the late Eighties). > Can it be deployed once on the ground? Yes, but I seem to recall that the aircraft would have to be jacked up slightly to accomplish the extension. > I wouldn't have thought so, but that means a light landing would then > force a light takeoff. Exactly so, and such a light takeoff would usually wipe out any landing fee savings. When I used to fly into Auckland, NZ, we were told by our airline management that when the aircraft was going only as far as Sydney on its next flight (about three hours away), we had the option of saving on the landing fees at AKL by landing with the center gear retracted. In dozens of flights, however, I never saw anybody actually do it. Mark E. Ingram MarkT@Mo-Net.Com (also mingram@mail.orion.org) From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:52 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Airbus Industrie announced the first two customers for the A340-500/600 program on Friday, August 1. Virgin Atlantic became the first customer to order the new A340-600 with an order for 16 aircraft, to be powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 500 engines. The first delivery will be in 2002, and according to Airbus will include such features as double beds in private rooms on the forward lower deck for passengers paying premium fares, a pub/lounge, showers, and an exercise and massage area on the aft lower deck. Virgin also ordered two A340-300s to augment the eight which it already has on order or in service. The Virgin orders are worth about $2.5 billion. Prior to announcement of the Virgin Atlantic order, Air Canada announced a letter of intent to acquire eight A330 and A340 aircraft, with options for another twenty, as part of a three-phase fleet renewal program. The first phase is to acquire five A330-300s and three A340-300s, valued at $1.4 billion, to replace six Boeing 747s (three 747-133 models and three 747-233 Combis) and two leased A340-300s. (Air Canada has an outstanding order for six A340-300B aircraft which appears to be unaffected by the LOI.) Phase two is for A340-500/600 aircraft, and the third phase is reportedly for eight more widebodies to replace the carrier's 747-400s. (Presumably this is for fleet expansion, too, since Air Canada only has three 747-400s, all 747-433 Combis.) The carrier set a March 1998 decision date for five of the new aircraft and ten of the options, for deliveries beginning in 2002. With the A340-500, Air Canada will be the first airline to operate such long-range non-stops as Toronto-Hong Kong, according to Airbus. (That route is trivially longer -- 19 miles -- than Chicago-Hong Kong, which United currently operates on a seasonal basis with 747-400s, but it's 262 miles shorter than New York-Hong Kong, which Cathay Pacific reportedly will be flying non-stop -- with A340s -- long before the A340-500 is likely to be delivered.) Despite the press releases, it's not clear that the announcements actually constitute what Airbus refers to as the industrial launch of the A340-500/600 program. The only order is for 16 A340-600s, and no A340-500s -- Air Canada announced only of a letter of intent, not a final contract, and even at that is only for options on the new models. Airbus had previously said that at least 25 orders would be required to launch the program. (Boeing and MD similarly announce "launch orders" which are in fact conditional on board approval of the program launch, though I can't recall them ever announcing a "launch order" which was also conditional on receiving additional orders.) The commercial launch of the A340-600 (approval to start offering the aircraft to customers) came in June, at the Paris airshow at Le Bourget. Specifications for the various A340 models, using passenger counts for typical three-class configurations: Model Pax Range ----- --- ----- A340-200 263 7,450 nm A340-300 295 7,300 nm A340-500 313 8,300 nm A340-600 378 7,300 nm A340-8000 232 8,000 nm (not yet launched) The A340-600, and its shorter A340-500 derivative, will use Rolls- Royce Trent 500 engines rated at approximately 56,000 lbs thrust. The other A340 models (including the proposed A340-8000) use CFM Industries' CFM56-5C engines rated at 30,000-34,000 lbs thrust. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:52 From: Joseph Edward Nemec Subject: APUs on A340s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Hi all, I was wondering if someone could answer a question. I have flown on an A340 several times now, and there has always been a problem with something. Once, the reading lights didn't work properly; they would turn on, but not turn off. A second time, none of the toilets worked, and the flight was badly delayed. A third time, I got on the airplane, and all the cabin lights kept going off and on. Some lights that looked like emergency lights came on a few times. What's the deal? Does the A340 have problems with its auxiliary power units? Someone told me they did. From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:52 From: Jack Cullen Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WOMR-FM, 92.1MHz - OuterMost community Radio in Provincetown, Cape Cod, MA Reply-To: yoda@daigobah.com Michel Gammon wrote: > My guess for the reason for nitrogen instead of air is that nitrogen is > inert. During an emergency stop before V1 when maximum braking is used, I > suspect the internal tire temperatures can get very high (the external > surface will at least be afforded some air cooling, while the gas in the > tire will be insulated from external air and thus will not be cooled). n.b.: Compressed air isn't actually explosive (of course, any gas held under pressure will explode if given the opportunity), but it will support combustion whereas nitrogen will not. I don't think flamability is the factor here, though. I believe I read somewhere that nitrogen is the choice because, since it is inert, it's also non-reactive and as a result it doesn't tend to collect moisture and/or corrode the inside of the tire the way that compressed air would. -- Jack Cullen West Chatham, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA Please reply to: DougDriver "at" aol "dot" com From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:52 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , kenish@ix.netcom.com wrote: > In the PBS TV series and book "Twentieth-Century Jet" (about the 777 > development program), there is a segment (photo in the book) about test > flights. One test involved ballasting the aircraft to MTOW, > accelerating to V1, then doing a maximum-performance stop. IIRC, this > dissipated approximately 1.5 billion foot-pounds into the braking > system. On the TV segment, the brake disks are glow orange-hot, and the > tires start to burn. The aircraft then had to remain in place for 5 > minutes (simulated crash crew response time) before any attempt to > extinguish the fire was made. The idea was to demonstrate that the fire > would not spread. I just completed producing a video for Boeing on flight testing the 777, during which I extensively interviewed John Cashman, the chief pilot of the 777 program. While the footage of the 777 max gross weight RTO (refused takeoff) test looks quite dramatic, in fact the flames are not the tires but simply the lubricating grease in the hubs that liquified and caught fire. The tires themselves were virtually undamaged by fire, although they all went flat when the fuse plugs melted out as they were supposed to once the plane cleared the runway. Also, the plane does not have to remain in place for 5 minutes. The only requirement is that it come to a complete stop before moving again. Cashman stopped the plane, let it rock forward and back once to prove to the FAA observer it had stopped, and then immediately applied power to taxi clear of the runway. If the plane had remained where it stopped, the tires would have deflated and the Edwards runway would have been closed for four or five hours while the wheels and tires were changed. SSo one of the goals of the test was to taxi the 777 clear of the runway before the tires began to deflate. However, the fire crews cannot approach the plane and begin hosing down the brakes for five minutes. You are correct in that the five minute wait is to ensure that any fires that might start will not endanger the passengers, as well as simulate the time it would normally take an airport fire crew to reach the scene. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:53 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Steve Lacker wrote: > Karl Swartz wrote: > > >The Dash 80 also carried a 5th engine to support the 727 program. > > >The JT8 was mounted just in front of the aft starbord cabin door ... > > > > Ok, that's how the JT8D was flight tested. > > Errrr.. Was it?!? I thought that the engine flown in that location was > just a JT3D (or maybe even a J-57), mounted there by Boeing to > investigate the effects of applying thrust at that location on the > airframe. I could easily be wrong, but it seems to me that the > ridiculous tailpipe (ever seen a picture of it? Its good for a laugh or > two!) would have completely invalidated any realistic in-flight testing > of a new powerplant like the JT8D. One couldn't even argue that it > simulated the S-duct of a 727 since that is on the inlet side of things. The engine tested on the aft fuselage of the Boeing 367-80 was in fact the JT8D engine proposed to be fitted in that location on the 727. The S shaped tail pipe that was fitted was there only to divert the hot exhaust gas around the 367-80's horizontal stabilizer, not as any form of test for the S Duct that would be required for the 727's number two engine. At the same time this extra engine was fitted the -80 was also modified to test the Krueger Flap/Slat/Triple Slotted Fowler Flap system that would be fitted to the 727. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:53 From: Chris Elberfeld <"*No Spam*elberfeld"@sprintmail.com> Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: *NoSpam*elberfeld@sprintmail.com Karl Swartz wrote: > Another example is Swissair 306, a Caravelle III flying ZRH-GVA-FCO on > Septmeber 4, 1963. Unfortunately, it wasn't so lucky -- one tire/wheel > disintigrated and caught fire prior to takeoff after prolonged ground > manuvering and braking, and another apparently exploded after takeoff. > 80 people died in the ensuing crash. Add to the list of accidents caused by tires exploding in the wheel well: Mexicana flight 940 on 31 March, 1986 which crashed after departing Mexico City for Puerto Vallarta, killing all 167 onboard. All this talk of violent tire explosions has me wondering why that hasn't been floated as a causse for TW800... ;-). From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:53 From: shumaker@eisner.decus.org Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe In article , "Michel Gammon" writes: > shumaker@eisner.decus.org wrote in article ... >> The most common reason for using nitrogen for tire inflation where the >> pressure must remain constant or at least predictable for wide >> temperature variations (e.g.: racing car tires which routinely exceed >> 180 F tread temperature) is that bottled nitrogen is _dry_. It's the >> water and water vapor that cause wild pressure increases with >> temperature; any dry gas would work as well. Nitrogen happens to >> be widely available and cheap. > > As a chemist I dispute this. Gas volume when uncontained or gas pressure > when contained is directly related to temperature. That is why you are > always admonished to check tire pressures on your car when they are cold, > for reproducible accuracy. The same instructions also admonish you to use sources of air which has low moisture content. > Water is a liquid and therefore will not be subjected to the same rules and > also is incompressible. Water vapour is microscopic liquid water droplets, > and steam is water in the gaseous phase. There is a significant volume increase when liquid-phase water changes into gaseous-phase water, and the phase change begins to occur over the range of temperatures which tires encounter. The problem with mixtures of gases and liquids is that while the gaseous components obey the gas laws, the liquids -- if they undergo phase changes -- do not. This effect is widely cited by tire manufacturers and application engineers as the reason to use dry gases for tire inflation. > My guess for the reason for nitrogen instead of air is that nitrogen is > inert. During an emergency stop before V1 when maximum braking is used, I > suspect the internal tire temperatures can get very high (the external > surface will at least be afforded some air cooling, while the gas in the > tire will be insulated from external air and thus will not be cooled). I > suspect that if air is used to fill the tires, the internal temperature of > the tire can theoretically exceed the auto-ignition temperature of the > rubber, thus igniting the tire and causing a catastrophic failure (which > often occur anyway probably as the pressure limit on the tire is exceeded). And this temperature is not sufficient to cause all liquid-phase (including fine droplets) water to turn into gaseous-phase water? Mark Shumaker shumaker@eisner.decus.org From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:53 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Aircraft Evacuation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , amuir@twsu.campus.mci.net (Andrew Muir) wrote: >>In article , ehahn@mitre.org (Edward >Hahn) wrote: > >>Perhaps someone could explain the exact methodology used in each of the three >>cases: (1) more pax than had been certificated, > >Doesn't happen. The airplane manufacturer has to demonstrate evacuation of >the maximum number of passengers to be certified for the type. The >manufacturer holds the type certificate, not the airline/owner. > >>, and (3) more pax than had been flown in service, but fewer than >>certificated/demonstrated. > >Airline can do as it pleases as long as exits are not blocked and the aisles >are not reduced beyond a certain width. Thanks for the explanation! Considering the original scenario (reproduced below, assuming condition 1) from above), does this mean that if the airline wanted to put more seats on board than had ever been demonstrated, then it has to lobby the airframe manufacturer (as type holder) to perform the evacuation demonstration, and thus get (re)certified? Also, where does FAR Part 121.291 (reproduced below) come into play? Does this only apply to older aircraft (per para. (a)(1))? BTW, from reading this paragraph, it seems to allow the airline to put more seats in than the type holder certificated the airframe to, provided the airline does the demonstration successfully. (I assume that if they are successful, the airline alone would hold the authority, and not the type holder, and it would be issued by the airline's FSDO, but there is nothing explicit in 121.291(a).) Finally, now assuming condtion 3) from above, how about paragraph 121.291(b), which pertains to partial demonstrations? If read this correctly, the airline is not required to do an evac under this scenario, as the aircraft is already in service with the airline (assuming that (b)(2) and (b)(3) also do not apply), which is in-line with your statements. ed (side comment - does this issue elucidate the complexity of the FARs adequately? :-) ) >In article , "P. Wezeman" > wrote: >> Does the FAA require airlines to demonstrate evacuation of airliners >>in every seating configuration that the airline uses? In other words, if >>an airliner wanted to squeeze more seats into an airliner than anyone >>had ever used before, would they have to demonstrate that the new >>configuration would still meet standards for evacuation time with a >>random half of the exits blocked, X% seniors, dummy infants and all >>the other test requirements? Part 121.291 - Demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, each certificate holder must conduct an actual demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures in accordance with paragraph (a) of appendix D to this part to show that each type and model of airplane with a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers to be used in its passenger carrying operations allows the evacuation of the full capacity, including crewmembers, in 90 seconds or less. (1) An actual demonstration need not be conducted if that airplane type and model has been shown to be in compliance with this paragraph in effect on or after October 24, 1967, or, if during type certification, with section 25.803 of this chapter in effect on or after December 1, 1978. (2) Any actual demonstration conducted after September 27, 1993, must be in accordance with paragraph (a) of Appendix D to this part in effect on or after that date or with section 25.803 in effect on or after that date. {New-95-12 Revised Dec. 20, 1995, effective Jan. 19, 1996} (b) Each certificate holder conducting operations with airplanes with a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers must conduct a partial demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section upon: (1) Initial introduction of a type and model of airplane into passengercarrying operation, if the certificate holder has not conducted an actual demonstration under paragraph (a) of this section; (2) Changing the number, location, or emergency evacuation duties or procedures of flight attendants who are required by section 121.391; or (3) Changing the number, location, type of emergency exits, or type of opening mechanism on emergency exits available for evacuation. {New-95-12 Revised Dec. 20, 1995, effective Jan. 19, 1996} (c) In conducting the partial demonstration required by paragraph (b) of this section, each certificate holder must: (1) Demonstrate the effectiveness of its crewmember emergency training and evacuation procedures by conducting a demonstration, not requiring passengers and observed by the Administrator, in which the flight attendants for that type and model of airplane, using that operator's line operating procedures, open 50 percent of the required floor-level emergency exits and 50 percent of the required non floor-level emergency exits whose opening by a flight attendant is defined as an emergency evacuation duty under section 121.397, and deploy 50 percent of the exit-slides. The exits and slides will be selected by the administrator and must be ready for use within 15 seconds; {New-95-12 Revised Dec. 20, 1995, effective Jan. 19, 1996} (2) Apply for and obtain approval from the certificate-holding district office before conducting the demonstration; (3) Use flight attendants in this demonstration who have been selected at random by the Administrator, have completed the certificate holder`s FAA-approved training program for the type and model of airplane, and have passed a written or practical examination on the emergency equipment and procedures; and {New-95-12 Revised Dec. 20, 1995, effective Jan. 19, 1996} (4) Apply for and obtain approval from the certificate-holding district office before commencing operations with this type and model airplane. {New-95-12 Revised Dec. 20, 1995, effective Jan. 19, 1996. Added last sentence.} (d) Each certificate holder operating or proposing to operate one or more landplanes in extended overwater operations, or otherwise required to have certain equipment under section 121.339, must show, by simulated ditching conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of Appendix D to this part, that it has the ability to efficiently carry out its ditching procedures. For certificate holders subject to Sec. 121.2(a)(1), this paragraph applies only when a new type or model airplane is introduced into the certificate holder's operations after January 19, 1996. (e) For a type and model airplane for which the simulated ditching specified in paragraph (d) has been conducted by a Part 121 certificate holder, the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of Appendix D to this part are complied with if each life raft is removed from stowage, one life raft is launched and inflated (or one slide life raft is inflated) and crewmembers assigned to the inflated life raft display and describe the use of each item of required emergency equipment. The life raft or slide life raft to be inflated will be selected by the Administrator. [Doc. No. 21269, 46 FR 61453, Dec. 17, 1981; Amdt. 121-233, 58 FR 45230, Aug. 26, 1993; Amdt. 121-251, 60 FR 65929, Dec. 20, 1995] >>>> 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 Mon Aug 4 21:28:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:53 From: 187 Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Subscriber, Pacific Internet, Singapore Reply-To: lowwol@pacific.net.sg Malcolm Weir wrote: > On 28 Jul 97 01:13:28 , Pete Mellor caused to appear as > if it was written: > >Andrew L. Stern on Sun Jul 13 10:43:44 1997 asks: > >> Last I heard, the FAA allows the cockpit crew to smoke ... > >In the course of several visits to flight decks, I have never > >seen any crew-member smoking ... > ... the airlines have their own rules preventing staff members smoking on > board. i thought that there is this air vent which the pilots can open up and then smoke a stick? From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:53 From: "Gary Welch" Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Compaq > ... the airlines have their own rules preventing staff members smoking on > board. I've read that Southwest's chain-smoking CEO, Herb Kellerher, frequently flies in the jump seat so he can smoke. From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:53 From: -@-.- (Craig Welch) Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dis- Pete Mellor wrote: >In the course of several visits to flight decks, I have never >seen any crew-member smoking. I think that, on non-smoking >flights (all flights by BA, Cathay, Singapore, etc., in fact >nearly all carriers these days) the ban on smoking extends >to the flight deck. Singapore Airlines still has smoking flights, those that originate or terminate in Japan. In a dozen or more cockpit visits over the last year, on a number of Asian carriers, the flight deck crew have been smoking about a third of the time (on "non-smoking" flights). Cheers, -- Craig email: craig at pacific dot net dot sg From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:54 From: V12 Subject: Re: De-icing airplane wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: vee12@airmail.net Thomas A. Beckley wrote: > > Steven J. Lorenc wrote in article > ... > > Could someone tell me who is responsible for the de-icing of wings? > > Does each individual airline have it's own crew for that? > > I've often seen de-icing trucks with airlines' names on them, but I suppose > they could still belong to subcontractors. For Delta at DFW the mechanics do most if not all of it. V12 From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:54 From: Andrew Gordon Subject: Re: De-icing airplane wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Steven J. Lorenc wrote: > Could someone tell me who is responsible for the de-icing of wings? > Does each individual airline have it's own crew for that? I'm looking > for either the names of some of the manufacturers of the trucks or the > companies which supply the service. http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/air/ea95q0015.html is an accident report of a fatal accident during de-icing at Montreal; the report concludes that one of the contributory causes of the accident was the commercial competition between airline-based and independent, unregulated, de-icing contractors. From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:54 From: "JCSFlyboy" Subject: Re: De-icing airplane wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flyboy Photography Thomas A. Beckley wrote in article ... > Steven J. Lorenc wrote in article > ... > > Could someone tell me who is responsible for the de-icing of wings? > > Does each individual airline have it's own crew for that? > > I've often seen de-icing trucks with airlines' names on them, but I > supposethey could still belong to subcontractors. I'm not sure what ALL the airlines do, but I can tell you about American. At least in major US cities, it is either American's mechanics or American's ground service personnel (Fleet Service) who does the de-icing. A rule of thumb for AA is if it's an AA deicing truck, chances are likely that the persons operating it are AA employees. m From kls Mon Aug 4 21:28:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 04 Aug 97 21:28:54 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , mikeh@zeta.org.au (Michael Hore) wrote: > On the 777, the same layout is used, but as C. Marin Faure > mentioned, the bogie is powered into a nose-up position when > the gear is extended, which allows a better absorption of > landing energy. When the gear retracts, the bogie first tilts > into a nose-down position which is similar to the normal 767 > position. From photos (I haven't had a chance to see one > for real yet), this repositioning happens at the same time > as the gear doors open. This is not quite correct. The 777 main trucks are not powered to a nose down postition at gear retraction but to a wheels-level position. I have seen this not only during the functional test cycles in the factory but on film from our chase planes. Also, while a rearward-slanting gear as on the 747, 777, etc. LOOKS like it would allow a smoother landing, I'm not sure it really makes any difference which way the gear slants. The initial contact point is simply the bottom of a tire hitting the runway. If the next action is the forward set of wheels pivoting down to contact the runway or the rear set of wheels pivoting down to hit the pavement, I don't think it really matters. The smoothness of a landing is determined by the pilots (or autoland system's) ability to minimize the vertical speed of the tires that hit the concrete, and the action of the oleo struts or whatever the vertical shock absorbing components in a jetliner are called. Which way the gear happens to tilt when hanging free during the approach I don't think makes any difference to the actual landing impact of the plane, although an aft slant "looks right" to those of us watching from the ground. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:46 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM) wrote: : >: The biggest advantage of the -400F (or factory built -2/300F) over a converted : > ^^^^ : >(I know of no 300Fs) : There were none. No reason, since the only difference between late : -200s and -300s was the longer upper deck on the -300, which was just : for passenger capacity. (Earlier -200s had lower weights.) : >Doesn't the 400F also have the top deck removed aft of the door? : Its upper deck has the same, or very similar, exterior dimensions as ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : the original -100 and -200, but it's quite different structurally. Apologies for not being clear. Of course the hump is the same. What I meant with top deck in the above phrase, is the actual floor where the first class bar used to be, or seats. I know cargo airlines put first class seats there, which pilots really like, since they do not have to cook coffee themselves. SO my question was, does the 747-400 has an upper-deck cabin, or does the deck (there is that dual-meaning word again) terminate behind the cockpit? : >I read in Flight International (30 April-6 May )that KLM is to convert : >747-200 SUD (747-200 converted to 300 standard, with Stretched Upper : >Deck). I missed writing 'two' in the above sentence. Two aircraft are sheduled to be modified. : You're most probably correct, since KLM has only three -300s while : they have ten -200s (seven which, like the -300s, have side cargo : doors). However, I've heard that converted -200s are "officially" : known as -200SUDs, while the planes built with the extended upper : deck were known as -200EUDs until Boeing retroactively created the : -300 designation. I have no idea how official this really is, but : wouldn't be at all surprised to see the terms mixed up quite often. : One exception is the two 747-100B(SR/SUD) aircraft, which appear to Do you mean the 747-300SR for ANA and JAL? I'll guess that what the marketing department decides a plane is called is not allways the same what the people working them call them. I recall that the domestic variant of the long-deck version was called that way. That brings the number of special versions of the Jumbo solely for the Japanese internal market to three: the 747SR (or 747-100SR), the 747-300SR (which you call 747-100B(SR/SUD)) and the 747-400D. : have been built with the larger upper deck but nevertheless got the : SUD designation -- indicating a conversion -- and not the EUD tag : of a plane built with the big hump. : >The mod involves shortening the upper deck. : Very interesting. I'm a little bit surprised that they'd go to that : much effort. Well, it is just an interior floor. The hump will be unaffected, I think. Presumably, the mod is advantagious because it allows the carrying of higher-stacked pallets. It appears that aircargo is mostly volume limited, not (or not mainly) weight limited. : >I do not know how pilots are going to get into the cockpit, the SUD : >has a gull-wing door halfway on both sides. : As noted in this group before, crews usually board 747 freighters via : the main deck, and use drop-down steps or ladders to access the upper : deck. The only reason for the upper deck door is for emergencies, and ^^^^^^^^^^^ Don't they have a hatch in the cockpit-ceiling for that? When a Panam 747 was hijacked in Karachi, the cockpit crew escaped via that. They then came back on board after the hijackers allowed women and children off. : I'd guess they'd include that door as part of the conversion. : >The bill is $48 million for two conversions. What is the price of a new : >747-400F? $140 million? : Boeing's web page (http://www.boeing.com/) has the 1997 list price of : a 747-400 as $156 to $174 million. Nothing specific to a freghter, : but I'd expect it to be near the low end of that range. Thanks. -- Filip De Vos The idea that space travel is inherently enormously expensive is fraudulent. FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be John S. Lewis From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:47 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >: >Doesn't the 400F also have the top deck removed aft of the door? >: Its upper deck has the same, or very similar, exterior dimensions as > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >: the original -100 and -200, but it's quite different structurally. >Apologies for not being clear. Of course the hump is the same. What I >meant with top deck in the above phrase, is the actual floor where the >first class bar used to be, or seats. You were clear enough. I'm just not certain that the hump is indeed the same. There are significant structural differences and the newer systems of the 747-400 mean the equipment in the hump behind the cabin area is quite different than on "rope start" 747s, so while it does appear that the -400F hump is the same as the original one, I wouldn't bet much on even the exterior being exactly the same. (Note the different window arrangement, with two or three closely spaced windows, though this may not really have any significance. >SO my question was, does the 747-400 has an upper-deck cabin, or does the >deck (there is that dual-meaning word again) terminate behind the >cockpit? The upper deck is definitely shorter than that of the original config (the 19' cabin of the "three-holers" -- Boeing later rearranged some of the equipment in the aft section of the hump to allow a 25' cabin with no external changes other than 8-10 windows per side instead of just three placed in every other frame). However, I believe there is still enough of a cabin to allow several first class seats or other crew-rest accomodations. >: One exception is the two 747-100B(SR/SUD) aircraft, which appear to >Do you mean the 747-300SR for ANA and JAL? No. JAL did acquire at least four 747-300SRs (ANA had none), but they also had two 747-100B(SR/SUD) aircraft. The 747-100B is a distinct model, an improved version of the 747-100 with a choice of engines, yet not quite a 747-200. I've never quite figured out how it differs, nor why Boeing bothered. (It appeared circa 1977, long after the -200 had been introduced. The Pratt-equipped versions use the same JT9D versions as the normal 747-100. MGTOW is higher than most original 747-100s, but I've seen 747-100s modified to the same weight as the -100Bs.) The two JAL planes are based on the 747-100B, and have the same type of engines as JAL's other -100 and -100B models -- engines which are not used on -200s or -300s. I checked several references and all agree that these two aircraft were built with the stretched upper deck, not modified after delivery. >That brings the number of special versions of the Jumbo solely for the >Japanese internal market to three: the 747SR (or 747-100SR), the >747-300SR (which you call 747-100B(SR/SUD)) and the 747-400D. There are at least five distinct variations, not counting differences between ANA and JAL orders for the same variation: airline model qty engines MGTOW seats ------- ----- --- ------- ----- ----- All Nippon 747SR-81 17 GE CF6-45A2 570,800 20+508 All Nippon 747-481(D) 12 GE CF6-80C2B1F 610,500 27+542 Japan Airlines 747SR-46 6 PW JT9D-7AW 570,000 16+512 Japan Airlines 747-146B(SR) 3 PW JT9D-7A 600,000 22+511 Japan Airlines 747-146B(SR/SUD) 2 PW JT9D-7A 600,000 25+538 Japan Airlines 747-346(SUD) 4 PW JT9D-7R4G2 600,000 25+538 Japan Airlines 747-446(D) 9 GE CF6-80C2B1F 600,000 24+544 There may have been more of some flavors built than what I list here, but I used the highest figure I could substantiate. Seating and MGTOW are the most recent values I could find for each variation. -- 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 Aug 5 03:15:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:47 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Karl Swartz wrote: > Virgin Atlantic became the first customer to order the new A340-600 > with an order for 16 aircraft, to be powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 500 > engines. According to the Seattle Times, both Air Canada and Virgin Atlantic signed LOI. > Virgin also ordered two A340-300s to augment the eight which it > already has on order or in service. The Virgin orders are worth about > $2.5 billion. I'm not sure but those two should also be LOI until the launch of the -600 is official. > Phase two is for A340-500/600 aircraft, and the third phase is > reportedly for eight more widebodies to replace the carrier's > 747-400s. The splitting will be two A340-500 and three A340-600 aircrafts. > Despite the press releases, it's not clear that the announcements > actually constitute what Airbus refers to as the industrial launch of > the A340-500/600 program. >The only order is for 16 A340-600s, and no > A340-500s -- Air Canada announced only of a letter of intent, not a > final contract, and even at that is only for options on the new > models. Airbus had previously said that at least 25 orders would be > required to launch the program. According to AW&ST the target for industrial launch is 25 orders. It seems clear to me that the two LOI are not sufficient to launch the programs. Again according to the Seattle Times, " The commitments by the two airlines also brought Airbus several steps closer to a formal launch of its planned new version of its widebody A340 aircraft." It is reported that Airbus is discussing with more than 20 customers. My guess is that Airbus will have more than 40 orders for the -500/-600 by the end of the year. Other customers should be Lufthansa, Swissair, Sabena, Cathay Pacific, Air France. I'm not sure if Singapore Airlines will choose the A340-600 or the B777-200X. Regards ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:47 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Q:FedEx B737? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com BBost0325 wrote: > What's even more interesting is that FedEx toyed around with the idea of > carrying passengers during the day around that time. (Packages at night, > passengers during the day). This idea seemed more feasible back in 1980 > since most of the fleet was parked during the day anyway (not true > today!). Read a few months ago that UPS started flying pax service during the day. But not *today*!! Ken Ishiguro From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:48 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com jf mezei wrote: > > > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > > Winglets are a compromise, used to improve the efficiency of an existing > > > or flawed wing design. If you have the opportunity to design a wing from > > > scratch and you get it right, as was done with the 777 and the New > > > Generation 737 family, there is no reason to install winglets. While they > > k_ish wrote: > > Also, the efficiency improvement from winglets is only fully realized at > > high altitude sustained cruise. Although winglets yield an efficiency > > increase at any altitude/airspeed, this improvement does not offset the > > weight and manufacturing penalties C. Marin describes. > > What about the other extreme of the 747-400, the Canadair Regional jet > (flying skidoo). It is designed for short hops, yet has winglets. Is > this because Canadair didn't build the wing from scratch, using designs > from its Challenger programme ? Good point. I don't know why the CRJ uses winglets, but here's a few possibilities: 1. The original wing may be common with the Canadair Challenger, and optomized for a "mission profile" different than the CRJ. An improvement to an existing design, as C. Martin Faure stated. 2. Winglets aerodynamically look like an increased-span wing, which may be required for the heavier CRJ. If the CRJ shares the production line with the Challenger (I don't know if this is true), a longer span wing might not work on the established production line. 3. Variation on 2. If the wing is common to both, the same tooling and jigging can be used. Add winglets, and voila. 4. The marketing department thinks winglets look cool! (Don't underestimate this as a possibility). > Or are the winglets on the CRJ purely for manoeuvrability/smooth ride > purposes ? > (do they make a difference ?) Winglets have nothing to do with handling or ride characteristics. (They do reduce the wake vorticies behind the wing, and could "improve" the handling and ride for a Cessna 150 following behind!) :-) Ken Ishiguro From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:48 From: "Steven G. Thomson" Subject: IL-62 outboard thrust reversers deployed on final - why? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc I have some photos I took of a Cubana IL-62M (CU-T1217) on short final at Toronto International in 1982. The picture shows both clamshell type outboard thrust reversers fully deployed with the aircraft on short final. Why would any aircraft be configured this way? It would certainly make an interesting overshoot! -- Steven G. Thomson Arnold, Missouri From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:48 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: explosion suppression systems References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet PFAFFENBERGER, SIEGFRIED (SIEGFRIED.PFAFFENBERGER@LHT.DLH.DE) wrote: : i remember that in the late 60's airplanes like the boeing 707 and 720B, : maybe also the 727 were equipped with an explosion suppression system : manufactured by a company with the name fenwal or similar. The system : sensed the onset of an explosion (early flame front) and reacted : supposedly fast enough to prevent further progress by triggering a : cartridge with a chemical inerting the surrounding air due to its strong : affinity to oxygen. the system was definitely much cheaper and lighter : than any of the systems discussed now for retrofit in connection with : twa 800. This explanation of the action of a fire suppressing system does not sound correct. A chemical with a strong affinity for oxygen is one which burns easily - combustion is, in one view, the removal of oxygen from air by combining it with some other element (carbon, hydrogen...) to form an oxide. The chemical described would seem just to nourish the fire. Fenwal was the name of a company which made, among other things, thermostats. I think they were also in the Fire Prevention or protection business. : This system apparently is no longer used. does anyone know for what : reason? was there a basic flaw? Don't know anything for a fact. Sorry -- Gerry From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:48 From: Ian McAndrew Subject: Re: Aileron control on Airbus References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cumbria, England In article , Pete Mellor writes >Does Ian recall which Airbus he was on? I looked at my holiday receipts - all it says is A300. If it is any help, it was Monarch Airline and a wide body - I think 9 abreast seating. The flight was Manchester to Turin. -- Ian McAndrew From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:48 From: astracon@aol.com (Astracon) Subject: Re: MD-11 Landing/Flare Behavior References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Further to Matthew's comments I'd also be curious to know how many of these "hard landings" are being flown manually. The MD-11 has a great Autoland system - sounds like pilots aren't using it! Steve From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:49 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: MD-11 Landing/Flare Behavior 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 kranz@sprintmail.com "Matthew Kranz" writes: >Thursday morning's crash of the FedEx MD-11 in Newark has prompted me to >pose a question to the group. Does the MD-11 have less-than-optimum >flare and landing characteristics? In addition to FedEx's crash (and >previous hard landing) of N611FE, I saw a Delta MD-11 make an arrival (I >wouldn't call it a landing ) at CVG a few months ago that was, >obviously quite hard. The plane touched down heavily somewhere between >the threshold and the 500-foot mark after little or no flare, and >bounced 5-10 feet in the air before touching down again. Another (possible) example: I understand that a Garuda MD-11 recently had a touch-down at Honolulu recently whereupon it started to `depart the runway' resulting in a tailstrike/go-around with significant airframe damage. Just conjecturing, but perhaps after long odd-hour flights pilots revert back to DC-10 habits/landing dimensions when landing MD-11s? -- -Niels From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:49 From: nw@ix.netcom.com (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: MD-11 Landing/Flare Behavior References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On 03 Aug 97 02:50:16 , Matthew Kranz wrote: >Does the MD-11 have less-than-optimum flare and landing characteristics? >...it has got me thinking. Can any MD-11 pilots throw their $0.02 in? Well, I'm not a pilot, but I've flown over 100 flights on 'em in a test capacity, and can say the quality of the ILS makes a big difference if the autopilot is landing the plane. Some touchdowns are pretty firm, but in all my flights, even under manual control, the plane's never bounced or scraped the tail. The above represents my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the position of my employer. Neil - nw@ix.netcom.com From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:49 From: Peter & James Liddell <72132.1641@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Here are simple ways of identifing twins from each other: A300B4: has faring on top of rear fuselage and four doors. A300-600R:Has small wing tip fences A310: Has three entry doors and the -300 ahve wing tip fences. A320: Very round, wing fences, two overwing exits. A319: As for 320 but only one set of overwing exits A321: As for 320, but has one overwing and three doors or four doors and no overwings. B-737-200: Pencil engines. B-737-300, -500, -600, -700: Falt bottom naceles and 'bent' tail. two overwing exits. B-737-400, -800: two sets of overwing exits. B-757: Sits very high on landing gear and seams very long. No wing tip fences. B-767-200: Seems wider than 757. Two doors and two overwings per side. No winglets or fences. B-767-300: Four doors and four wheels per main bogie. B-777: Four doors and six wheels per bogie. A330: Full winglets (only go up). Also seems longish. -- Peter "All alone in the lonely land" From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:49 From: swestin@ford.com (Stephen Westin ) Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ford Motor Company In article "Paul Stow" writes: > In "P. Wezeman" writes: > > How can one distinguish a Boeing 777 from the many other twin engine > >airliners, seeing it in flight without any direct size comparison? I > >suppose I could make a set of World War Two style flash cards with > >aircraft silhouettes. > > A B777 has three pairs of wheels on each oleo of the main undercarriage, > the nearest looking aeroplane (B767) has on two pairs. Boeing large twins > taper at the back and Airbus don't, they are flat on the top all the way to > the back. Around here, we just look for the British Airways livery; no one else files 'em to Detroit, I think :). Almost all of our long-haul flights are Northwest, so we see DC-10's and 747's instead of 777's; United and others fly smaller planes between DTW and their hubs, and the off-brands like ATA and Sun Country use older hardware. -- -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 Tue Aug 5 03:15:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:50 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , snarley@hotmail.com wrote: > shampoo wrote: > > As for identifying the 777, keep in mind it is very large. Look > > for 6-wheeled main bogies. If that fails, check out the APU as it flies > > overhead. Unlike a 757 which has a visible rounded exhaust, the 777 is > > "tapered" in the rear, similar to an MD80. Good luck. - Shampoo. > > Along similar lines, how do you indentify a 767? I'm in Phoenix, and I > see lots of 757 land and takeoff at/from Sky Harbor International > Airport. I haven't seen any 767s (perhaps couldn't identify them?). 757s are noticeably slimmer (single-aisle A/C vs twin-aisle 767) and they have a "drooped" nose sort of like a DC-8. Actually, it's not so much drooped as asymetrical. This was done in order to fit the 767 flight deck into the smaller 757 so the planes could have a common type rating. You actually step down into the 757 flight deck. Some paint schemes (the old British Airways, for example) emphasize the 757's nose profile while others do not. If the gear is down as the plane passes overhead, the main trucks of the 767 tilt forward, while the trucks on the 757 tilt aft. We film Boeing airplanes all the time at international airports, but the most difficult time we have is when we're filming them heading at us for landing. It's quite difficult to tell a 757 from the A320 family when they're on final coming toward us until they're fairly close. The 757 has longer wings and the A320 has squared-off flap track fairings, but from a distance the two planes look remarkably similar. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:50 From: "William H. Wright" Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Pete Mellor wrote: > "P. Wezeman" , Sun Jul 13 13:43:46 1997, asks: > > How can one distinguish a Boeing 777 from the many other twin engine > > airliners, seeing it in flight without any direct size comparison? > > It's got bloody big engines! This is right on. The 777 engines are much bigger than other twins and as a result appear to have about half the vertical height below the fuselage. My office mates and I just tested this theory out of our office window on a 777 on final to Boeing Field. The plane was too far away to see the windows but the large cowlings were clearly evident. A second feature is the length of the tail cone. The 777's appears much longer in relation to the fin than other Boeing products. -- William H. Wright Systems Analyst Email William.Wright.@PSS.Boeing.com ;replace .@ with @ to email From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:50 From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Santa Fe Institute snarley@hotmail.com wrote: >Along similar lines, how do you indentify a 767? I'm in Phoenix, and I >see lots of 757 land and takeoff at/from Sky Harbor International >Airport. I haven't seen any 767s (perhaps couldn't identify them?). Two good clues from the side of the aircraft are the nose, the point of the 757's nose being considerably lower than that of the 76, and the 75 has four quite noticeable flap track fairings under each wing. The two fuselages are different also, of course, the 75 being quite a bit slimmer than the 76. From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:51 From: k_ish Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Neil Wagner wrote: > You never asked the right people. ;) > Some DC-8's have the ability to deploy their inboard thrust reversers > in flight, acting as speed brakes. I don't think they were ever > intended for use just prior to landing. There was a bad Air Canada crash in the 60s or 70s caused by inadvertent thrust reverser deployment during a go-around. IIRC, there was miscommunication in the cockpit. The captain said, "takeoff power" and the FO interpreted this as "take off power". Perhaps another person in this NG has more facts. Ken Ishiguro From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:51 From: BobB Subject: Re: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Occasional Reply-To: bblondel@3rddoor.com Stuart Feigin wrote: > elberfeld@sprintmail.com wrote: > > An earlier reply to my posting quoted an "Airliners" magazine article > > which mentioned that Sterling did, in fact, fly a CPH-KEF-YQX-OMA-SFO > > (whew)service in 1970 ... > > For those who have never been in a Caravelle, let me tell you that that > flight would have been unbearable. The longest Caravelle flight I was > on was Oslo-Paris, and I had trouble standing up for a day. Try to > imagine an airliner built like Disney builds Main Street, an exact, 5/8 > size replica of a real airliner. I'll stand - er, limp - behind that statement. Vienna to Heathrow was sheer agony! -= bob =- From kls Tue Aug 5 03:15:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 03:15:51 From: -@-.- (Craig Welch) Subject: Re: APUs on A340s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dis- Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: >I was wondering if someone could answer a question. I have flown on an >A340 several times now, and there has always been a problem with >something. [description of various electrical problems elided] >What's the deal? Does the A340 have problems with its auxiliary power >units? Someone told me they did. When SIA took delivery of their A340s, there were continuous problems for a while with galley electrics... Breakers tripping, etc. Cheers, -- Craig email: craig at pacific dot net dot sg From news Sat Aug 2 06:04:42 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!204.27.64.4!news-out.communique.net!communique!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Air Canada and Virgin order Airbus planes Date: 2 Aug 1997 12:03:09 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> I'm surprised that no one has posted anything about the two orders in these two newsgourps. I'll skip the details. Basically, AC is going to order 3 A330-200s and 5 A340-300s to replace 6 B747 Classics and 2 leased A340-300s. Options on A340-500s and A340-600s are intended to replace its B747-400s. VS has announced its intent to buy 16 A340-600s and 2 A340-300s. For details, you can check the websites of respective airlines or Airbus website . If you are confused about the model numbers, here's a brief description: A340-300 ~295 pax ~7,300 nm - in production - competes w/ B777-200IGW A340-500 ~315 pax ~8,500 nm - under development - competes w/ B777-200X A340-600 ~375 pax ~7,300 nm - under development - competes w/ B747-400 and B777-300X A330-200 ~265 pax ~6,500 nm - under development - competes w/ B767-400ER Some comments: 1. AC's order is not a big surprise, even though there were rumors that AC might order the B777. With AC's current fleet, the A340 makes sense. However, I am surprised that AC is replacing the old B747s with the much smaller A330-200 and A340-300, especially the A330-200 which is about 60% the size of a B747. 2. Long time ago, VS had shown great interest in the B777. I believe VS had even paid deposits for some B777 slots. So, this is a significant win for Airbus. With British Airways dropping its Union-Jack-derived logo, all of a sudden, VS is big on "Britishness." Other than the Trent-powered A330, it's been a while since a commercial airliner has such a high British content that the A340-600 will have. (The A340-600 will be powered by the Trent 500 only, while the A330 has three engine offerings.) This point has been duly noted in VS's announcement. 3. VS has become the first launch customer for the A340-500/600. I think Airbus has a good chance to get launch orders from Swissair for the A340-600 (to replace the B747) and Cathay Pacific for the A340-500. Boeing seems to be a little bit behind with its plans for the B777-200X/300X. The B777-200X/300X is supposed to enter into service in 2001, one year ahead the A340-500/600. With the merger between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas completed, my guess is Boeing probably will announce something more concrete about the B777-200X/300X soon. From kls Tue Aug 5 14:19:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 14:19:30 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Korean Air flight 801 from Seoul crashed early Wednesday morning in rainy weather on approach to its destination, Guam's Agana International Airport, according to the FAA. Contact was lost with the aircraft when it was about three miles out, and initial reports indicated that it went into the water, but wreckage was subsequently found in the Nimitz Hill area, a heavily wooded jungle in the southern portion of the island. CNN variously reported 231 and 331 people aboard the plane. Reports indicate there are at least 30 survivors. KE801 is scheduled to depart SEL at 805p and arrive GUM at 115a the next day, operating with AB3 (A300) equipment. Reports from the FAA and local authorities indicate that the plane which crashed was a Boeing 747, though Korean Air said the flight was being operated by "an Airbus" as advertised. KAL operates A300B4-100, A300-600R, and A330-300 passenger models (and also two A300F4-200 freighters). If the correct number of people aboard the flight is the higher number, it must have been a 747 unless their A330s have an atypically dense seating configuration. Another report, apparently from CNN but filtered through several other people, claimed the registration of the accident aircraft was HL7468. That's a 747-3B5 (msn 22487 ln 605) with JT9D-7R4G2 engines, delivered to KAL on December 12, 1984 after its first flight on December 3. A representative of the Guam Airport Authority claimed the plane had been experiencing engine trouble, and White House officials reported a fire aboard the aircraft. Neither offered any substantiation for their claims, however. See http://www.airnav.com/cgi-bin/airport-info?GUM for FAA information about the airport itself. Airbus Industrie's web site (http://www.airbus.com/), which usually is kept quite current, has nothing about the crash. Korean Air's site (http://www.koreanair.com/) doesn't have anything either. Boeing has a link to their press release about the crash on their home page (http://www.boeing.com/) which is noteworthy in its inclusion of the following disclaimer, which is especially apropos for Usenet: As more detailed information becomes available, we will make it available. You should be aware that once the accident investigation commences, the regulatory authorities will be the sole authorized source for information. Boeing will not circumvent that authority. We will not speculate about what may have been the cause of this incident, and we encourage others not to speculate. Alas, CNN's page on the crash (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9708/05/guam/) includes an "Airline Crash Message Board" which poses the question "What do you think caused the crash? Was it political or mechanical?" They ought to take a hint from Boeing's press release. -- 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 Aug 5 17:45:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 17:45:50 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >[A report claimed] the accident aircraft was HL7468. >That's a 747-3B5 (msn 22487 ln 605) with JT9D-7R4G2 engines, delivered >to KAL on December 12, 1984 after its first flight on December 3. Boeing has now confirmed this identification, noting that as of June 30, the aircraft had flown 49,526 hours and completed 8,340 cycles. It apparently substituted for the smaller A300 scheduled to operate the flight because a large team of athletes was to fly on the return flight to Seoul on their way to American Samoa. The flight carried 254 people, with 231 passengers (including three children and three infants) and a crew of 23. There appear to be at least 30 survivors, with more possibly alive in the wreckage. One survivor reportedly claimed there was no sign of any problem prior to the crash, which occurred at 2:35 am local time in heavy rain. NTSB chairman James Hall said the glide slope portion of the ILS was not functioning. -- 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 Aug 5 17:45:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 17:45:50 From: Celestar 9V-SJH Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Other customers should be Lufthansa, Swissair, >Sabena, Cathay Pacific, Air France. I'm not sure if Singapore Airlines >will choose the A340-600 or the B777-200X. I doubt Singapore Airlines will go for either A340-600 or the B777-200X. They have mentioned that the B777-200X is too big for their long-haul routes and are unhappy that Boeing is not offering the B777-100X. SIA does not have any B747-100/200s for replacement by the A340-600. And they are already operating 37 B747-400s, with almost 8 more on firm order and 10 on options (the largest fleet of 747-400 in the world). I doubt they'll acquire the A340-600 for expansion too. Their order for 61 B777s should be sufficient. Singapore Airlines A Great Way to Fly From kls Tue Aug 5 17:45:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 17:45:50 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > > Model Pax Range > ----- --- ----- > A340-8000 232 8,000 nm (not yet launched) The Sultan of Brunei did order one or two A340-8000. I'm not sure if the order has been cancelled. Air Canada was the only airline that had shown interest in the plane and signed an LoI for two planes, but AC later determined that the A340-8000 was too small. From kls Tue Aug 5 17:45:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 17:45:50 From: drela@mit.edu (Mark Drela) Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > Incidentally, one of the most > efficient wings in the sky (according to the airlines who fly it, not me) > is the 757 wing. One of the "problems" 757 pilots have is slowing the > plane down, the wing is so efficient. Hmm. I wonder what they mean by "efficient" here. Having a high L/D at approach speeds with partial flaps? I'd say cruise Mach is much more important. For cruise performance I would vote for the B777 wing as being the best of the heap. I has nearly the speed of a B747 with far less wing sweep. That's airfoil technology at work. Mark Drela First Law of Aviation: MIT Aero & Astro "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory" From kls Tue Aug 5 17:45:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 17:45:50 From: "Pete Adler" Subject: Re: MD-11 Landing/Flare Behavior References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: "Pete Adler" In article kranz@sprintmail.com "Matthew Kranz" writes: >Thursday morning's crash of the FedEx MD-11 in Newark has prompted me to >pose a question to the group. Does the MD-11 have less-than-optimum >flare and landing characteristics? In addition to FedEx's crash (and >previous hard landing) of N611FE, I saw a Delta MD-11 make an arrival (I >wouldn't call it a landing ) at CVG a few months ago that was, >obviously quite hard. The plane touched down heavily somewhere between >the threshold and the 500-foot mark after little or no flare, and >bounced 5-10 feet in the air before touching down again. There have been problems associated with the MD-11 especially in the flare regime. This occurs with both autoland, and manual approaches. It is my understanding that primarily this occurs because there was a reduction in the size of the elevator to reduce both drag and weight on the aircraft. This reduction allowed the aircraft to meet its promised spec range and payload guarantees. Unfortunately, the aircraft became dynamically unstable in certain regimes of flight. This was resolved with a software change that supposedly resolved the instability issues. The first few hard-landing incidents that occured with the MD were with auto-land engaged. This prompted a ban on auto-lands and manual approaches only. Shortly thereafter, another hard-landing with auto-land prompted a ban on auto-lands with manually flown approaches only. This also did not solve the problem. From kls Tue Aug 5 17:45:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 17:45:50 From: Christopher Davis Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dirac Angestun Gesept JFM> == Jean-Francois Mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> JFM> What about the other extreme of the 747-400, the Canadair Regional JFM> jet (flying skidoo). It is designed for short hops, yet has JFM> winglets. Is this because Canadair didn't build the wing from JFM> scratch, using designs from its Challenger programme ? The current Challenger wing does have winglets, though the original design didn't. Note that the Challenger (especially the current model, the Challenger 604) has a fairly long range (>4000nm at M0.74), and is designed for intercontinental or transcontinental use. I suspect the CRJ wing retains the winglets along with the other design elements it inherits from the Challenger, and for the same reasons. -- Christopher Davis Geographic locations in DNS! From kls Tue Aug 5 17:45:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 17:45:51 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Stuart Feigin (sfeigin@us.oracle.com) wrote: [snip] : For those who have never been in a Caravelle, let me tell you that that : flight (CPH-KEF-YQX-CMA-SFO) : would have been unbearable. The longest Caravelle flight I was : on was Oslo-Paris, and I had trouble standing up for a day. Try to : imagine an airliner built like Disney builds Main Street, an exact, 5/8 : size replica of a real airliner. I had a few flights in Caravelle. I don't remember them as remarkably uncomfortable. The one described sounds rough in any kind of airplane. -- Gerry From kls Tue Aug 5 17:45:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 17:45:51 From: Celestar 9V-SJH Subject: Re: APUs on A340s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >When SIA took delivery of their A340s, there were continuous problems >for a while with galley electrics... Breakers tripping, etc. Well, when SIA took delivery of their new B747-400 Megatops, they also encountered problems with the galley electrics. I remember one encounter when my flight from London-Singapore on one of their new B747-400 (9V-SPG) was delayed for almost 3 hours because of such problems. I had a chance to speak to the Captain, who told me that such faults are "common with new aircrafts". Airbus A340-300E Celestar 9V-SJH From kls Tue Aug 5 17:45:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 17:45:51 From: Bob Standaert Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: Texas A&M University Reply-To: standaert@chemvx.chem.tamu.edu shumaker@eisner.decus.org wrote: > In article , "Michel Gammon" writes: > > shumaker@eisner.decus.org wrote in article ... snip > > Water is a liquid and therefore will not be subjected to the same rules and > > also is incompressible. Water vapour is microscopic liquid water droplets, > > and steam is water in the gaseous phase. No. Water vapor is a gas. Steam -- water vapor -- water in the gaseous (vapor) phase. > There is a significant volume increase when liquid-phase water changes > into gaseous-phase water, and the phase change begins to occur over the > range of temperatures which tires encounter. True. A kilogram of water at 0 deg C would occupy a volume of 1.0 L as a liquid, 1.1 L as a solid, or 1250 L as a (hypothetical) gas at 1 atm. pressure (14.7 psi). However, I have trouble believing that the pressure fluctuation caused by the condensation or freezing of water vapor is a serious issue. For the sake of illustration, assume the volume of a large aircraft tire is 1000 L; whether this is right or wrong doesn't affect the conclusion. Imagine the tire is pressurized to 150 psi with sultry summer air at IAH (40 deg C, 100% relative humidity), and that no liquid is introduced. I'll treat the Houston air as an ideal gas (hardly an assumption anyone who has breathed it can accept, but bear with me). The vapor pressure of water at 40 deg C is 55 mm Hg (1.07 psi), and the total pressure of 150 psi would reflect the sum of the partial pressures: 149 psi from dry air and 1 psi from water vapor. The mass of the contained gaseous water would be approximately 50 grams (equivalent to 50 mL of liquid, or about 5 teaspoons). If the tire were then cooled to -50 deg C, where the vapor pressure of water is 0.03 mm Hg (0.0006 psi), essentially all of the water would condense and freeze. The pressure in the tire would drop to about 106 psi, but the condensation of water would contribute only about 1 psi to the drop. It would be as if the tire had initially been inflated to 149 psi instead of 150. On the other hand, if you started out with some liquid sloshing around inside the tire and heated it up, you could generate a significant pressure increase over what you'd get otherwise (the water will contribute a partial pressure equal to its vapor pressure, which increases sharply with temperature). If we heat the tire (no extra liquid inside) from 40 to 100 deg C, its pressure will increase from 150 to 179 psi; if there were extra liquid at the outset, the pressure could go as high as 192 psi (water has a vapor pressure of 14.7 psi at 100 deg). You would need to vaporize 0.6 L of excess liquid to see the full effect. If we heated the tire (no extra liquid) from 40 to 150 deg C, the pressure would increase to 203 psi. With excess liquid water at the outset, the pressure could go as high as 271 psi because water has a vapor pressure of 69 psi at 150 deg C. You would need to vaporize about 2.5 L of liquid to see the full effect. Less liquid, less effect; no liquid, no effect. As long as you don't start out with liquid water inside the tire, the water won't have much effect on pressure. If small amounts of condensation are a concern, I expect it is because of the potential for freeze/thaw damage or corrosion rather than pressure changes. Since it would be just as easy if not easier to use dry air as nitrogen, and air is a little cheaper, I expect that the chemical inertness of N2 is a significant factor. Regards, Bob From kls Tue Aug 5 17:45:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 17:45:51 From: m@bang.org Subject: Re: O'Hare Accident References: <01bca1d1$c7c8e580$b1689cce@john> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: a2i network "jdobyns" wrote: > My understanding is that modern jetliners have the ability to take off > safely even if one engine fails on takeoff. If so, did they ever figure > out why the one flight leaving Chicago in the late 70's crashed after an > engine fell off? There is a significant difference between an engine failing to produce thrust and an engine separating from a wing. Certification requires demonstration only of the former. The latter can be expected to do considerable damage to the wing during separation. An example follows. During 1995 (possibly late 1994), a US Navy P3C Orion belonging to VP-47 (the Golden Swordsmen) was decending over the Persian Gulf for a landing in Saudi Arabia. Seven minutes out, an indicator light illuminated signalling low pressure in the hydralics which control the variable pitch of the propeller on the #4 engine. The pilots initiated the procedure to shut the engine down, switch it to fixed pitch, and restart the engine. Moments before shutdown, the #4 engine exploded. A propeller blade from the #4 engine struck the #3 engine, separating the #3 engine from the wing. The residual inertia (from the propeller blade) of the now joined #3 engine and #4 propeller blade threw the still spinning #3 engine into the underside of the fuselage. The spinning propeller blades of the #3 engine cut through all three hydraulic systems, and cut the emergency shutdown wires for the #1 and #2 engines, shutting them down for the last time. The Orion was now two minutes out over the Gulf, with no power, no hydraulics, a mutilated starboard wing, and not enough altitude to eject. Less than ten seconds before impact, the pilots managed to attain ditching attitude. The most serious injury was injested JP-5. The hull was pulled from the water, and is now used for firefighting practice at a Saudi airfield. M Carling -- Microsoft Network is prohibited from reproducing this work, in whole or in part. Copyright 1997, M Carling. License is available to Microsoft Network to reproduce this work for $1000. Unauthorized reproduction by Microsoft Network constitutes agreement to these terms. Please report violations to m@bang.org and postmaster@microsoft.com. From kls Tue Aug 5 17:45:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Aug 97 17:45:51 From: cc230@torfree.net (Derek Grace) Subject: Re: Boeing 767 main gear tilt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Toronto Free-Net François Airault (fairault@compuserve.com) wrote: : > The gear tilt "toe down" in order to stow more efficiently. This allows : > the main gear well to be shorter, making the cargo holds longer. This is : > goodness since longer cargo holds carry more revenue stuff. A small side : > benefit is that a shorter gear well makes the airplane slightly lighter : > and stiffer. : Is this a fact, or are you assuming ? My recollection from the type : rating is that the gear is hydraulically (normal) or mechanically : (standby, by the inner doors) untilted while retracting. Looking at the : 767 wheel well, it actually seems that the gear is stowed straightened, : with the truck parallel to the centerline. In addition, calling the 767 : main gear "short" and "light" is a rather stem way of putting it. It is : a very complicated design, and the tilted truck is only part of it. I'm : only curious to understand why (ok, VERY curious now that I have done : some digging, to no avail). Yes this is a fact and no he's not assuming. The B767 MLG trucks are tilted 17 degrees forward to enable them to enter the wheel wells. If they are not tilted the landing gear lever lock in the cockpit will not release and the gear handle cannot be raised to the up position unless manually over ridden (not wise unless the cause is known). Landing gear truck tilt or untilt at touchdown is also used to automatically deploy speedbrakes if they are armed. The trucks are tilted hydraulically by truck tilt positioner. Regards -- Derek Grace Toronto, Ontario, Canada cc230@freenet.toronto.on.ca From kls Wed Aug 6 01:49:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Aug 97 01:49:30 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam 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) kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >NTSB chairman James Hall said the glide slope portion of the ILS was >not functioning. Vital detail - he said it was NOTAMed. In other words, it was declared OUT OF ORDER. That's way different from "Oh they crashed because the glideslope was wrong..." Someone will have the approach plate for that field and can tell us what the minimums are with and without the glideslope. -- 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 Wed Aug 6 01:49:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Aug 97 01:49:30 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Karl Swartz wrote: > to the crash, which occurred at 2:35 am local time in heavy rain. > NTSB chairman James Hall said the glide slope portion of the ILS was > not functioning. Could someone put this missing glide slope in perspective ? Just how important is it to a landing in darkness with little or no visibility ? What other instruments/information would have been available to the pilot to help him stay on track to the runway ? Is it plausible that the missing glide slope would have resulted in the plane being much lower than it should have been in its approach ? How common is it for the glide slope to be inoperational for airports that handle 747s on a daily basis ? Is this a no-brainer for pilots when it is missing, or does this require a lot more attention ? From kls Wed Aug 6 01:49:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Aug 97 01:49:31 From: k_ish Subject: Re: APUs on A340s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: > I was wondering if someone could answer a question. I have flown on an > A340 several times now, and there has always been a problem with > something. Once, the reading lights didn't work properly; they would > turn on, but not turn off. A second time, none of the toilets worked, > and the flight was badly delayed. A third time, I got on the airplane, > and all the cabin lights kept going off and on. Some lights that looked > like emergency lights came on a few times. > > What's the deal? Does the A340 have problems with its auxiliary power > units? Someone told me they did. Perhaps they do have APU problems, but the "light show" you saw was a different system. Widebody aircraft systems such as cabin lights, PA, audio/video entertainment, attendant call, reading lamps, NSFSB (no smoking/fasten seatbelt) lights, etc. are all controlled by a digital multiplex system running through the cabin. This is called the PSS/PES (Passenger Entertainment System/Passenger Service System). When you press the reading light button, for example, on the armrest controller (called a Passenger Control Unit, PCU), a digital command is transmitted to a computer, usually one per cabin zone. It tranmits the command to another unit in the overhead compartment that turns on your reading light. This system may be complex, but it saves weight versus a "hardwire" system, and can be reconfigured as seating arrangements and classes of service change. If this system goes nuts and starts sending out garbage data, all sorts of interesting cabin lighting glitches can occur. It sounds like this is what you saw. Ken Ishiguro From kls Wed Aug 6 01:49:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Aug 97 01:49:31 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , yoda@daigobah.com wrote: > Michel Gammon wrote: > > My guess for the reason for nitrogen instead of air is that nitrogen is > > inert. During an emergency stop before V1 when maximum braking is used, I > > suspect the internal tire temperatures can get very high (the external > > surface will at least be afforded some air cooling, while the gas in the > > tire will be insulated from external air and thus will not be cooled). During an emergency stop, the tires can get so hot that they will explode no matter what they're filled with. The effect of a 747/777 tire exploding is identical to the detonation of a 500 pound bomb. For this reason, the wheels are fitted with fuse plugs which melt at a specific temperature and let the air/nitrogen/whatever out of the tire before it explodes. In the film we have of the 777's max gross weight RTO (refused takeoff) test you can clearly see the fuse plugs squirting out of the wheel followed by a big puff of smoke as the tire begins to deflate. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Aug 6 01:49:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.ifr,eunet.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Aug 97 01:49:31 From: Zachary Canright Subject: Re: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Alaska Inc. Reply-To: zzacman@Alaska.NET John Hilt wrote: > On 01 Aug 97 04:04:20 , "William Caefer" wrote: > >Actually, if I lived as close to the only real source of the answer as you > >do (ie: Russian pilots) I'd try to stroll on over to the airport and ask a > >couple of them some questions about how they fly and procedures for their > >airlines. All pilots like to talk about flying after all. :) > > I've tried talking to them, but they're only interested in what they > can bring home for free. Like worn-out car tyres, food and live > chickens. :-) Because they can't speak or understand a word of English. I work for airway facilities (FAA) and know a fellow who works at Miami International. It is standard practice for all ground traffic to leave all taxiways and runways when Aeroflot is on final. Aeroflot has been known to land on taxiways, and the wrong parallel runway. If you are a Russian pilot and can say "roger" and "OK" you are good to go. There is actually a localizer antenna at Miami Intl. that has 747 Aeroflot tire track on it. From kls Wed Aug 6 01:49:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Aug 97 01:49:31 From: Brad Hunnewell Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Quantum Networking Solutions; USA; info@qnet.com Reply-To: bhunnewell@aol.com Gary Welch wrote: > > > ... the airlines have their own rules preventing staff members smoking on > > board. > > I've read that Southwest's chain-smoking CEO, Herb Kellerher, frequently > flies in the jump seat so he can smoke. Sounds like an urban legend. Unless ol' Herb is a 121/135 flightcrew member, he shouldn't be able to ride in the jumpseat- even on "his" planes, right?? Anyone? BH From kls Wed Aug 6 01:49:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Aug 97 01:49:32 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: explosion suppression systems 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) "PFAFFENBERGER, SIEGFRIED" writes: >i remember that in the late 60's airplanes like the boeing 707 and 720B, >maybe also the 727 were equipped with an explosion suppression system >manufactured by a company with the name fenwal or similar. The system >sensed the onset of an explosion (early flame front) and reacted >supposedly fast enough to prevent further progress by triggering a >cartridge with a chemical inerting the surrounding air due to its strong >affinity to oxygen. the system was definitely much cheaper and lighter >than any of the systems discussed now for retrofit in connection with >twa 800. >This system apparently is no longer used. does anyone know for what >reason? was there a basic flaw? This sure sounds like a Halon dump system. The trigger can be a UV-light detector, I know Edison Onmiguard was one name for that part. Halon manufacturing was banned by the Montreal Treaty; existing systems can be left in place but not refilled. -- 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 Wed Aug 6 01:49:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Aug 97 01:49:32 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: De-icing airplane wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation >Steven J. Lorenc wrote: >> Could someone tell me who is responsible for the de-icing of wings? >> Does each individual airline have it's own crew for that? I'm looking >> for either the names of some of the manufacturers of the trucks or the >> companies which supply the service. In response to the first part of your question, the airline is always _responsible_ for the deicing procedures. Ref FAR Part 121.629, which specifically states that the operator is responsible (i.e. it talks about "dispatch or release" of aircraft for flight - clearly the operator's job.) That being said, it does NOT mean that the airline must use its own personnel to perform the deicing. At some airports, the airline may contract out it's deicing procedure to other firms (other airlines or local businesses), but the FAR still requires the third party to follow the specific airline's approved deicing program. As for companies which supply the trucks and other ground equipment, suggest you look in the latest edition of the World Aviation Directory, under ground service equipment. 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 Wed Aug 6 01:49:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Aug 97 01:49:32 From: Chris Elberfeld <*NoSpam*elberfeld@sprintmail.com> Subject: Re: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: *NoSpam*elberfeld@sprintmail.com Gerard Foley wrote: > > I had a few flights in Caravelle. I don't remember them as remarkably > uncomfortable. The one described sounds rough in any kind of airplane. I don't remember the Caravelle as being cramped either. Then again, I was 12 years old the last time I rode on one. Does anyone out there have cabin or seat dimension data for the Caravelle compared to, say, the DC-9? From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:14 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: RE: De-icing airplane wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Steven J. Lorenc asked: >Could someone tell me who is responsible for the de-icing of wings? >Does each individual airline have it's own crew for that? I'm looking >for either the names of some of the manufacturers of the trucks or the >companies which supply the service. And I answer: Manufacturer of chemicals: BP Chemicals phone +44 171 496 2908 - Colin Cavan Paul Richi is manager of system aircraft de-icing for Canadian Airlines Call Shephard Conferences & Exhibitions to find out who attended the "De-icing '97" conference at Heathrow in April '97 (phone +44 1628 604764, fax +44 1628 604 075) US Manufacturers: FMC and Simon Vestergaarde of Denmark is a big player in the European market Regards Alex. -- This message does not constitute official EUROCONTROL correspondence. The Organisation is not responsible for its contents or the consequences of its use, nor for inaccurate transmission or misdirection. From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:15 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: More on de-icing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Try SAE Aerospace. They organised a conference on Aircraft ground deicing in Pittsburgh, PA from 11-13 June 1997. Web site: www.sae.org e-mail: meetings@sae.org Regards Alex. -- This message does not constitute official EUROCONTROL correspondence. The Organisation is not responsible for its contents or the consequences of its use, nor for inaccurate transmission or misdirection. From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:15 From: Wally Subject: Thrust/HP Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: It's A Secret (IITYIHTKY) Reply-To: gordow@cts.com At the expense of sounding stupid, could anyone explain the mathematical relationship of thrust(rocket or jet) and horsepower. More precisely, how does one convert from one to the other. I can't begin to relate how long and often I've pondered this question. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, W. Gordon From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:15 From: Michael Davias Subject: Re: O'Hare Accident References: <01bca1d1$c7c8e580$b1689cce@john> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cintos Systems Reply-To: mike@cintos.com jdobyns wrote: > > My understanding is that modern jetliners have the ability to take off > safely even if one engine fails on takeoff. If so, did they ever figure > out why the one flight leaving Chicago in the late 70's crashed after an > engine fell off? The American Airlines DC10 involved in the accident you are referencing actually had three engines, but that did not help. During an engine refurbishment prior to the accident, maintenance workers removed the engine along with its mounting pylon, instead of removing the engine from the pylon first. This improper activity overstressed the pylon mounting bolts, which subsequently failed in a catastrophic manner during full-throttle takeoff. The engine and pylon rotated forward and then over the wing, severing control lines to that wing's control surfaces. The immediate result was that flaps on that wing began to retract. This put the aircraft into an unbalanced lift situation, and it rolled to a wings-vertical position as it rapidly lost altitude. It had been suggested that if the crew reacted quickly enough to retract the other wing's flaps, the crash could have been avoided. I find that suggestion to be a long (cheap) shot by armchair pilots. [Moderator's Note: Not to mention that simply retracting the other flaps would have caused *both* wings to stall. In any case, lots has previously been said in sci.aeronautics.airliners about this crash -- see http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html for the group's archives. -- Karl] -- Michael E. Davias mike@cintos.com 146 High St. #304 Milford, CT 06460 From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:16 From: don@toyunix.zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: O'Hare Accident References: <01bca1d1$c7c8e580$b1689cce@john> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Wolery Reply-To: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz In article , wrote: >"jdobyns" wrote: >> My understanding is that modern jetliners have the ability to take off >> safely even if one engine fails on takeoff. If so, did they ever figure >> out why the one flight leaving Chicago in the late 70's crashed after an >> engine fell off? > >There is a significant difference between an engine failing to produce thrust >and an engine separating from a wing. Certification requires demonstration >only of the former. IIRC, the O'Hare crash factors included: Power was lost from the missing engine; The slats retracted due to damage; and Instrumentation that would have indicated that the slats had retracted was also damaged in the separation. thus the pilots, whos' instrumentation was indicating nothing more than an engine failure, continued with a fairly low-speed (ie maintaining rate of climb at the expense of airspeed) engine-out procedure, when in fact the lack of slats on that wing meant that the aircraft wasn't controllable at that speed. Remember that you can't see the wing or engines from the flight deck. I believe the engine-out procedure was changed following this accident to use a higher speed (but lower rate of climb) to allow for possible slat damage. -- don From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:16 From: Chris Elberfeld <*NoSpam*elberfeld@sprintmail.com> Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: *NoSpam*elberfeld@sprintmail.com Speaking of B-777 wingtips: To my knowledge, no carrier has ordered the folding wingtips option. (Perhaps because they knew it would only be a matter of time before somebody would try to take off with the wingtips folded..:-) ). Does anyone know if Boeing still offers this option? From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:16 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. k_ish wrote: > Winglets have nothing to do with handling or ride characteristics. Not true - winglets add to the effect of dihedral of a wing. I know of at least one airplane where winglets were added to increase dihedral, with the drag improvement being only a secondary consideration. The original CL-600 Challenger wing/body configuration proved to have excessive drag in flight test. The winglets added to the CL-601 alleviated some of this. The CRJ has a modifed wing that improves things further and the Stretched CRJ will have additional changes to the wing (including leading edge devices). ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:16 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Mark Drela wrote: > In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > > Incidentally, one of the most > > efficient wings in the sky (according to the airlines who fly it, not me) > > is the 757 wing. One of the "problems" 757 pilots have is slowing the > > plane down, the wing is so efficient. > > Hmm. I wonder what they mean by "efficient" here. Having a high L/D > at approach speeds with partial flaps? I'd say cruise Mach is much > more important. I think he is talking about the transition from cruise to descent, which is done with a "clean" wing. Apparently, the thing has a tendency to want to keep on flying fast. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:17 From: hackett@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Your Organization In article , jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> says: >k_ish wrote: >> Also, the efficiency improvement from winglets is only fully realized at >> high altitude sustained cruise. Although winglets yield an efficiency >> increase at any altitude/airspeed, this improvement does not offset the >> weight and manufacturing penalties C. Marin describes. > >What about the other extreme of the 747-400, the Canadair Regional jet The Beech 1900D has winglets. It is designed for even shorter hops than the CRJ. From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:17 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , drela@mit.edu (Mark Drela) wrote: > In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > > Incidentally, one of the most > > efficient wings in the sky (according to the airlines who fly it, not me) > > is the 757 wing. One of the "problems" 757 pilots have is slowing the > > plane down, the wing is so efficient. > > Hmm. I wonder what they mean by "efficient" here. Having a high L/D > at approach speeds with partial flaps? I'd say cruise Mach is much > more important. The pilots I interviewed about the 757 were talking about cruise performance and cruise fuel burn, not landing criteria. They were talking about the initial slow down from cruise speed at altitude. I'm not saying the 757 wing is more efficient than the 777 wing, I'm simply quoting these particular pilots opinions. I'm not even sure you can make a fair comparison between the efficiency of the 757 wing vs the 777 wing, as the airplanes themselves are so different. The 777 wing is outstanding, no doubt about it. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:17 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany On 05 Aug 97 03:15:48 , k_ish wrote: >Winglets have nothing to do with handling or ride characteristics. Winglets affect roll-yaw coupling and hence both longitudinal and lateral stability. B. Domke From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:17 From: D Snow Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Being the president of the company, I AM sure he has written their operations manuals to include him under the grant of special flight deck access the FAA wrote into 121.547, under the phrase "other people with permission of the Director of Flight Operations, and the Pilot in Command." Practically every other carrier has their CEO types listed in their special flight deck access list, from the FOMs I have seen. ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie (SBNOOU2) UCE will be charged for violating 47 USC 227. Lawsuits cheerfully pursued. :) 2112 = It's not just a song, but a way of life! From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:17 From: Patt Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HOU Reply-To: address@bottom.net Brad Hunnewell wrote: > Gary Welch wrote: > > > ... the airlines have their own rules preventing staff members > > > smoking on board. > > > > I've read that Southwest's chain-smoking CEO, Herb Kellerher, frequently > > flies in the jump seat so he can smoke. > > Sounds like an urban legend. Unless ol' Herb is a 121/135 flightcrew > member, he shouldn't be able to ride in the jumpseat- even on "his" > planes, right?? Anyone? I don't know of any airline that doesn't have a list of corporate officers (most are not pilots) having access to the cockpit in their respective Operations Manual, which is approved by the FAA. The corporate officers are listed along with the 'usual' authorized J/S riders. Patt mailto:pattmcd@swbell.net From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:17 From: m@bang.org Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: a2i network Brad Hunnewell wrote: > Gary Welch wrote: > > I've read that Southwest's chain-smoking CEO, Herb Kellerher, frequently > > flies in the jump seat so he can smoke. > > Sounds like an urban legend. Unless ol' Herb is a 121/135 flightcrew > member, he shouldn't be able to ride in the jumpseat- even on "his" > planes, right?? Anyone? Wrong. The FARs permit the airlines to allow anyone to ride in a jumpseat. The FAR # and rule have been posted here before. If you are a FF (say, several 100,000 miles/year) on a US airline, writing them a letter asking permission to ride in a jumpseat for a specific flight may work, particularly if you've paid full fare. M Carling -- Microsoft Network is prohibited from reproducing this work, in whole or in part. Copyright 1997, M Carling. License is available to Microsoft Network to reproduce this work for $1000. Unauthorized reproduction by Microsoft Network constitutes agreement to these terms. Please report violations to m@bang.org and postmaster@microsoft.com. From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:18 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Karl Swartz wrote: > Despite the press releases, it's not clear that the announcements > actually constitute what Airbus refers to as the industrial launch of > the A340-500/600 program. The only order is for 16 A340-600s, and no > A340-500s -- Air Canada announced only of a letter of intent, not a > final contract, and even at that is only for options on the new > models. Airbus had previously said that at least 25 orders would be > required to launch the program. The Wichita Eagle confirms what I read in the Seattle Times two days ago, quoting AI Spokeswoman Barbara Kracht : ' The orders are a "major step" toward the launch, but it needs to gather firm commitments from more airlines before it formally commits to production. ' Regards ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:18 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Celestar 9V-SJH wrote: > I doubt Singapore Airlines will go for either A340-600 or the B777-200X. > They have mentioned that the B777-200X is too big for their long-haul > routes and are unhappy that Boeing is not offering the B777-100X. The situation of Singapore Airlines is special. They have still 41 options for the B777. I don't know of any options for the A340. The 41 options were signed with the B777-100X in mind. If the B777-200X is not corresponding to their needs what are they going to do with all these options? A part may be converted to -200IGW's (for traffic growth), the other ones may never be converted to a firm order. Canceling the options may not be very cheap. The A340-500 is rangewise (8300nm) not as performant as the -200X (~8500nm) and seats 10 more passengers. The dead born A340-8000 with 8000nm and 240 passengers could be a compromise, but it looks like the plane Singapore Airlines is asking for is not going to be launched that soon ... > Singapore Airlines > A Great Way to Fly Looking at your e-mail address and signature file I would say that you work in the advertising business :-) Regards ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:18 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Celestar 9V-SJH wrote: >Other customers should be Lufthansa, Swissair, >>Sabena, Cathay Pacific, Air France. I'm not sure if Singapore Airlines >>will choose the A340-600 or the B777-200X. > >I doubt Singapore Airlines will go for either A340-600 or the B777-200X. You mean the A340-500. >They have mentioned that the B777-200X is too big for their long-haul >routes and are unhappy that Boeing is not offering the B777-100X. That's old news. Boeing has shown SIA that the B777-100X would only be able to carry around 100 passengers for ultra-long-range operations in a configuration consistent with SIA's level of comfort. Even with the B777-200X, Boeing and SIA are working on defining the required performance based on 206 seats and year-round non-stop operation between Singapore and Los Angeles. That's nearly 80 seats less than the current B777 that SIA is operating. >SIA does not have any B747-100/200s for replacement by the A340-600. And >they are already operating 37 B747-400s, with almost 8 more on firm order >and 10 on options (the largest fleet of 747-400 in the world). I doubt >they'll acquire the A340-600 for expansion too. Their order for 61 B777s >should be sufficient. Some of the -400 are almost ten years old. Supposedly, in another two to three years, the first batch of the -400 should be replaced. The B777-300/-300X, as well as the A340-600, can be potential candidates. From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:18 From: Pete Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: - Reply-To: Pete Hughes In article , Celestar 9V-SJH writes >SIA does not have any B747-100/200s for replacement by the A340-600. And >they are already operating 37 B747-400s, with almost 8 more on firm order >and 10 on options (the largest fleet of 747-400 in the world). I make it that British Airways currently has 38 747-400s in service and a further 21 on order which calls into question the statement above? -- Pete From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:18 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Air Canada and Virgin order Airbus planes References: <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> <5s7uh5$4s4$16@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 <5s7uh5$4s4$16@kragar.kei.com> caribb@promobility.net "caribb" writes: > You are right, AC's choice for the new Airbus aircraft is not a >surprise. The 747-200s that the A330s will replace were Combi versions >that were generally configured for just over 200 passengers which makes >if somewhat close to the capacity of the A330. Furthermore the A330-200 >is a possible choice in the future for 767 replacements. T It will be interesting to see if AC ever (well...in the next 10 years, say) sees the need to a) have something between the 767-300 and A330-300 and/or b) replace the 767-200s/300s. Since there is no obvious 767-200 replacement and the 330-200 barely if at all competing with the 767-300, I suspect it would make more sense for AC to one day think of 767-400s rather than get A330-200s. -- -Niels From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:19 From: Chris Elberfeld <*NoSpam*elberfeld@sprintmail.com> Subject: Reverse Thrust in Air (was Trident/More Weirdness)) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: *NoSpam*elberfeld@sprintmail.com I have heard the story of "Take off power" vs Takeoff Power", too, but it was in relation to a military mishap. The only bad Air Canada DC-8 accident from that period that comes to mind is the 1970 crash of of AC621 at Toronto. In that accident, the F/O deployed the spoilers before touchdown instead of arming them. This resulted in very hard landing and a go-around was attempted. Unbeknownst to the crew, the number four engine had hit the runway and broken off. Leaking fuel caught fire and the resulting explosion caused most of the right wing to break off. The DC-8-63 crashed about three minutes after the initial mishap, killing all 109 people onboard. The CVR revealed that the spoilers had been deployed when the Captain asked for them to be armed. There were two other hard landings of DC-8's (Alitalia and Icelandic, I think) caused by premature spoiler deployment not longe after this accident. Eventually, an AD was issued to modify the spoiler control system. As far as engine reversing in the air goes, there was an incident in the early 1960's involving an Eastern DC-8 in which ability to reverse the two outboard engines help the crew recover a steep dive that had been caused by an upset. In an ironic twist, a member the flight crew involved in that incident later died in the crash of another Eastern DC-8 near New Orleans. That crash was the result of an uncontrolled dive, possibly caused by a trim problem. Reverse thrust had been used to help pull out of the dive and the manuver (sp) was almost successful. From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:19 From: don@toyunix.zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Wolery Reply-To: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz In article , k_ish wrote: >Neil Wagner wrote: >> Some DC-8's have the ability to deploy their inboard thrust reversers >> in flight, acting as speed brakes. I don't think they were ever > >There was a bad Air Canada crash in the 60s or 70s caused by inadvertent >thrust reverser deployment during a go-around. IIRC, there was >miscommunication in the cockpit. The captain said, "takeoff power" and >the FO interpreted this as "take off power". Perhaps another person in >this NG has more facts. Air NZ dropped a DC-8 on takeoff while doing a miluated engine-out takeoff, when the No. 4 reverse thrust was accidentally deployed -- I believe Douglas eventually released a mod to the thrust controls to prevent this. -- don From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:19 From: sleetz@aol.com (SLeeTz) Subject: MD-95 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Anyone hear about when this airplan will be coming out? From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:19 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-95 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Anyone hear about when this airplan will be coming out? First flight in 1998 and deliveries beginning in 1999, accroding to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/md95/md95.htm. Boeing does a remarkable job with their web site. It's pretty odd going their to find info on their MD-95, though, and odder yet to see in the Breaking News area a message about the Fine Air DC-8 crash in Miami. It's hard to imagine a Boeing DC-8. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:19 From: jliebson@roadrunner.com ("John Liebson") Subject: Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Santa Fe Institute kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >No. JAL did acquire at least four 747-300SRs (ANA had none), but they >also had two 747-100B(SR/SUD) aircraft. The 747-100B is a distinct >model, an improved version of the 747-100 with a choice of engines, >yet not quite a 747-200. I've never quite figured out how it differs, >nor why Boeing bothered. 747-100B: Reinforced structure, later-series JT9D engines, options for several series of GE CF6, Rolls-Royce RB211, previous features of already existing 200B, allowable taxi weight increased to 753,000 lbs. Japan Airlines , Saudi Arabian , Iran Air (initial customer), only customers identified as buying 100Bs. Given small production, that 200B already in production, does seem a bit of an oddity. From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:19 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>The 747-100B is a distinct model, an improved version of the 747-100 >>with a choice of engines, yet not quite a 747-200. I've never quite >>figured out how it differs, nor why Boeing bothered. >747-100B: Reinforced structure, later-series JT9D engines, options for >several series of GE CF6, Rolls-Royce RB211, previous features of >already existing 200B, allowable taxi weight increased to 753,000 lbs. Except for the taxi weight, that list of features could easily be used to describe a 747-200B. The -200B started off with a MGTOW of 785,000 lbs, so taxi weight was probably about 788,000 lbs. With the 777-200(IGW), the only difference between various MGTOW optiosn is paperwork and dollars. Is a 747-100B simply a 747-200B which doesn't have a MGTOW in excess of 750,000 lbs on its certificate? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:20 From: "Michael W. Noel" Subject: Airliner Routing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MWN & Associates Reply-To: the2nd0l@gte.net Hi to the newsgroup... If this is not an appropriate "post", please excuse this question from an "almost newbee", (although I have been a "lurker" for several months) posting my first message to this newsgroup requesting info on *ground tracks* of commercial airliners. If this post is, indeed, appropriate, would some of the obvious "experts" that monitor and contribute to this newsgroup, please give me the courtesy of a reply. Here is some background info: Every evening (sky conditions permitting) I watch regular (every few minutes, depending on the time of evening) airliners traveling mostly West/Southwest from my patio on the North side of York, Pennsylvania (at approx 40.0N & 76.7W - and approximately 25 miles south of Harrisburg, PA and 50 miles North of Baltimore, MD). These airliners appear to be climbing, are high enough to be "noiseless", and also at times seem to *slightly* change their ground tack by turning more toward the South while in my view. Here is/are my question(s)... #1 Is there a site(s) on the WWW where I could determine the following... What is the flight info on any commercial flight passing over a given point at a specific time ?? Is there some repository of info on the normal time dependent "routes" of airliners ?? (And yes, I recognize that there are flight "delays", but I am really interested in the "reasonably" accurate "scheduled" times.) For example: What ground "site" would be in control of these flights in the York, PA are ? Where do those flights originate ? Where are they going ? What are the airline/flight number designations ? What "air-to-ground" radio frequencies would they be using ? Etc. ? Is there any other available info ?? If there is such a site (or sites) that would have this information available, what is/are the URL(s) for my personal follow-up ?? I am familiar with the "airline" links that allow "real-time" tracking of a *known* filght number. But I have searched using the common and well known "search engines" and am unable to come up with info on the WWW that would allow me to determine from "where" these "unknown" (at least to me...) flights originate (I'm guessing Philly), where they are going, and what the airlines and flight numbers are (from which I can find the aircraft type, destination, etc..). I continue to be amazed at the info available on the WWW, but have run out of ideas as to how to retrieve what I am looking for. Any help or guidance would be appreciated... Thank you, Mike Noel From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:20 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Aer Lingus signs for A321s 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 Aer Lingus has signed for 4x A321s. 2 in 1998 and 2 in 1999. To operate the Dublin-LHR service. Like the British Midland A320/321 deal this is somewhat surprising since both are strong 737 operators. This may have been the deal Boeing was once looking for to develop the 737-900 (along with a Chinese airline). Haven't heard about the -900 recently tho. -- -Niels From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:20 From: bengel@grobbebol.xs4all.nl Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Grobbebol's Home Reply-To: bengel@xs4all.nl In rec.travel.air jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote: > Could someone put this missing glide slope in perspective ? > Just how important is it to a landing in darkness with little or no > visibility ? What other instruments/information would have been > available to the pilot to help him stay on track to the runway ? not too important, since the G/S onkly gives guidance coupled to the A/P. If the G/S is inop, there are 'manual' slopes used of approx 3 degrees. > Is it plausible that the missing glide slope would have resulted in the > plane being much lower than it should have been in its approach ? normally not. > How common is it for the glide slope to be inoperational for airports > that handle 747s on a daily basis ? Is this a no-brainer for pilots when > it is missing, or does this require a lot more attention ? there are enough reasons to have the G/S tramsitter inop. It's not a big deal. if the weather requires the G/S and it's not working... the runway is closed for landing. Note that at AMS, the main rwy for the last few days, was CAT 1. Nothing to worry about. -- Grobbebol's Home | Don't give in to spammers. http://www.xs4all.nl/~bengel | Use your real e-mail address Linux 2.0.30 on an i586/64 MB | on Usenet. From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:20 From: Phil Wood Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AeroMarketing Associates (http://www.aeromarketing.com) Reply-To: woodp@netgate.net jf mezei wrote: > Could someone put this missing glide slope in perspective ? "Missing" is probably not the right work. It was out of order and so stated. In pilot-speak, it was NOTAM (notice to airman) out of service. When the glideslope part of an approach is out of service, the approach reverts to a localizer-only approach. It requires a little bit more pilot effort when hand-flying, but not significantly more. It certainly wouldn't "overwhelm" even a begining IFR pilot. A localizer approach provides just directional information lined up directly to the runway. Alltitude step-downs occur at either fixed time or distance increments until you reach a minimum descent hight. If you see the runway, land - If not, go around. Under no circumstances can you go below the minimum. Obviously, KAL801 violated that rule. > Just how important is it to a landing in darkness with little or no > visibility ? What other instruments/information would have been > available to the pilot to help him stay on track to the runway ? A full ILS usully brings the aircraft down to 200 ft above the runway before teh pilot either has to land or abort. LOC approaches are higher (typically 300-600) - there are many factors which determine the minimum descent altitude (obstacle clearance, missed approach considerations, runway length, lighting, etc.) > Is it plausible that the missing glide slope would have resulted in the > plane being much lower than it should have been in its approach ? One of the requirements for descending below MDA is to have the runway environment in sight - either lights, runway or something. KAL801 crahsed 3 miles from the airport with less than three miles visibility. >From the reports, that sounds like a NO-NO. > How common is it for the glide slope to be inoperational for airports > that handle 747s on a daily basis ? Is this a no-brainer for pilots when > it is missing, or does this require a lot more attention ? Not uncommon - GS and LOC require maintenance like anything else. And they are but only two of the many instrument approach methods - I'd rather shoot an ILS over a LOC, but if the GS is out, a LOC is almost as easy. The tough ones (in my opinion) are NDBs - That's what was in use at Dubrovnik when Sec. Brown went down. -- Phil Wood woodp@netgate.net 73717.3453@compuserve.com Philip.Wood@sv.sc.philips.com Phil Wood From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:21 From: Jack Cullen Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WOMR-FM, 92.1MHz - OuterMost community Radio in Provincetown, Cape Cod, MA Reply-To: yoda@daigobah.com jf mezei wrote: > Karl Swartz wrote: > > to the crash, which occurred at 2:35 am local time in heavy rain. > > NTSB chairman James Hall said the glide slope portion of the ILS was > > not functioning. > > Could someone put this missing glide slope in perspective ? There is no perspective to put the missing glide slope into -- it's a red herring and is not a factor here! It's been out for maintainance and upgrade for about 3 or 4 weeks! I've e-mailed friends based on GUM with Continental Micronesia and based on what they say it seems to be, barring discovery of aircraft malfunction or crew incapacitation, another tragic case of CFIT -- likely the result of the crew's lack of accurate altitude awareness. The question now is, why was the crew not aware of how dangerously low their altitude was. There could be any number of reasons for that -- from, on one extreme, a conscious decision to descend below the specified minimum altitude to a simple metric/English conversion error complicated by possible language misunderstandings, or even an instrumentation error. Until the reasons are determined it should be understood that a professional flight crew will not consciously place their aircraft in fatal jeopardy. Many accidents are the result of good decisions having been made based on flawed or incomplete information -- and this one appears on the surface like it might be exactly that. -- Jack Cullen West Chatham, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA Please reply to: DougDriver "at" aol "dot" com From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:21 From: UnitedSJC@aol.com Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On CNN today (in the daylight) you could see the VOR just meters from the crash site. Reports said that the aircraft was supposed to be 1800' above the VOR on the approach. I assume that this VOR was used as part of the localizer approach. Does anyone have approach plates for GUM to see what the localizer approach looks like and what role the VOR plays....just curious. Obviously for KE801, something went wrong w/ the approach. A couple of theories that I have heard are: * wind shear (wx was reported as less than favorable) * inaccurate altimeter setting (causing the aircraft to be lower than indicated in the cockpit but I really don't think that the glide slope being inoperative had anything to do with it. Any comments on this? It will be interesting to see what the NTSB has to say. JF Mezei wrote... >Could someone put this missing glide slope in perspective ? The glide slope provides vertical guidance to the runway. Approximately 3o (although this varies from airport to airport). In combination with the localizer they form an ILS approach (Instrument Landing System). The localizer provides horizontal guidance. Absence of a glide slope reverts the approach to a "localizer approach" - the only difference from an ILS approach being the lack of a smooth descent. In a localizer approach, radio navigation aids (fixes) are used to determine distance from the runway, and the published approach plates for the approach determine the altitude you can descend to after passing each fix. So, for instance, SFO ILS Rwy 19L has a provision for the glideslope being inoperative. A profile view of what this should look like is published on the chart. It begins at 5000' at BERKS at which a descent to 2900' is permitted. After passing the next fix "SHAKE", a descent to 1900' is permitted. After passing the next fix "OSTOR" a descent to 340' is permitted. At the Middle Marker, the airport must be in sight or a missed approach must be begun. Following these altitude restrictions ensures terrain clearance. I know this is a bit wordy and might be hard to understand especially for someone not familiar with instrument flying. Can anyone else explain it more clearly? Also, I don't fly 747's, so I can't explain what shooting a localizer approach in one is like. Russ From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:21 From: Phil Wood Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AeroMarketing Associates (http://www.aeromarketing.com) Reply-To: woodp@netgate.net jf mezei wrote: > Could someone put this missing glide slope in perspective ? The folks at Jeppeson were kind enough to post a copy of the Agana ILS 6L approach at http://www.jeppesen.com/guam.html. If radar is out, it would be up to the pilot to navigate to either HAMAL, FLAKE or ZEEKE at 2,600 ft and then navigate until lining up on the IGUM localizer. Turn inbound and descend to 2,000 ft. If radar is up, ATC would vector you to a point somewhere between FLAKE and GUQQY. If the GS had been functional, the pilot would have received vertical guidance information about 5 miles from the airport and followed a 3 degree slope until 200 feet above ground - If he sees the airport, he lands, if not, he goes around and may try again. With the GS out, the approach reverts to a localizer approach and the pilot uses a series of vertical steps to descend to the airport. According to this approach plate, he drops from 2,000 to 1,440 ft after crossing 1.6 miles from the UNZ VOR and then to 560 feet (304 above the ground) after crossing the UNZ VOR. Note that the LOC requires a little more effort to descend and level off and descend and level off, while the ILS is a nice continuous descent. Also note that you can descend to 200 ft above the ground on the ILS (304 on the LOC) so in low clouds you have a better chance to see the runway and land on an ILS. A localizer requires a little more effort than an ILS, but it certainly wouldn't have overwhelmed this experienced crew. -- Phil Wood woodp@netgate.net 73717.3453@compuserve.com Philip.Wood@sv.sc.philips.com Phil Wood From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:21 From: duenasd@kuentos.guam.net (David Duenas) Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kuentos Communications Inc. In article , "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca wrote: > Karl Swartz wrote: > > to the crash, which occurred at 2:35 am local time in heavy rain. > > NTSB chairman James Hall said the glide slope portion of the ILS was > > not functioning. > > Could someone put this missing glide slope in perspective ? > > Just how important is it to a landing in darkness with little or no > visibility ? What other instruments/information would have been > available to the pilot to help him stay on track to the runway ? > > Is it plausible that the missing glide slope would have resulted in the > plane being much lower than it should have been in its approach ? > > How common is it for the glide slope to be inoperational for airports > that handle 747s on a daily basis ? Is this a no-brainer for pilots when > it is missing, or does this require a lot more attention ? Suggest you check out web sites for NBC at www.msnbc.com. They had a good description of what the glide slope was about. Really, it's like an invisible line the plane rides down to the runway. If you have been following the news, I don't buy the ILS as the cause. The FAA just upgraded their radar system here and Guam now has one of the nations most sophisticated radar sites. The Air Force actually operates the tower as they also control flight ops for the bombers/fighters/etc. at Andersen AFB on the northeasternmost portion of the island. Check out CNN, or ABC siteas also. They had good general maps of the island as well as info. My wife works for a major US carrier whose hub is here and they fly 747s and DC-10s in addition to smaller 727s, etc. out of here all the time. They will continue to fly day and night ops despite CNN's 7/6/97 report of western carriers not flying to Guam at night. Only carriers from US are Continental, United and Northwest. International carriers include KAL, Thai, JAL, Air Nippon, Singapore Airlines, etc. We have had over 60 flights since the system went down for an upgrade. For more info, check out www.radiopacific.com. This is the local talk show station everyone here just about listens to. The morning show starts at 6:00 AM Guam time which is 1:00 PM in the afternoon on the previous day in the west coast. Check it out for a feel of what is happening. Don't wait to long, though. Many people listen from around the world and they can't keep up with demand on the server. From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:21 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca wrote: >Could someone put this missing glide slope in perspective ? It may be a factor but on its own it is not the cause. >Just how important is it to a landing in darkness with little or no >visibility ? What other instruments/information would have been >available to the pilot to help him stay on track to the runway ? The glide slope provides vertical navigation inofrmation. Precision instrument approaches include both horizontal and vertical navigation aids. "Non-precision" aprroaches (such as a VOR approach) do not include vertical navigation aids. Most airports have multiple instrument approaches. A full ILS includes both a glide slope for vertical information and a "localizer" for horizontal information. Most ILS approaches, as published, also incluse localizer-only minimums for use when the glide slope is inop. >Is it plausible that the missing glide slope would have resulted in the >plane being much lower than it should have been in its approach ? Only due to pilot error. A non-precision approach, including an ILS localizer-only approach, will have higher descent minimums than a precision approach. You do not go below those minimum altitudes until you have the runway in sight and are in position to make a normal landing. >How common is it for the glide slope to be inoperational for airports >that handle 747s on a daily basis ? Is this a no-brainer for pilots when >it is missing, or does this require a lot more attention ? Yes and yes. It should be a no-brainer but it does require more attention to fly a non-precision approach. Unfortunately, evidence from other incidents suggest that many airline pilots get so used to flying easy approaches day in and day out that when something is down, they're thrown for a loop. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Schaumburg, IL, USA From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:22 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com jf mezei wrote: > > Karl Swartz wrote: > > to the crash, which occurred at 2:35 am local time in heavy rain. > > NTSB chairman James Hall said the glide slope portion of the ILS was > > not functioning. > > Could someone put this missing glide slope in perspective ? > > Just how important is it to a landing in darkness with little or no > visibility ? What other instruments/information would have been > available to the pilot to help him stay on track to the runway ? An Instrument Landing System (ILS) has two radio beams projecting from the runway up the approach profile. The localizer indicates whether the aircraft is left or right of the extended runway centerline. The glide slope slopes down (usually at a 3 degree angle) to the runway. An instrument in the cockpit merges these two (the simplest ones use crosshairs) and by keeping the needles centered, you know you are descending properly to the runway. This type of approach is called an ILS approach. If the glide slope component of the ILS is inoperative then the approach is called a Localizer approach. It is quite common (especially for general aviation airports) to have a localizer and no glide slope. In a localizer approach, you begin the approach at an "initial approach fix" (IAF). Your distance to the runway is determined by one or more methods: 1) Time from IAF 2) Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) which indicates distance to the runway 3) A set of ground radio beacons called the outer, middle, and inner markers. In all 3 cases, at certain distances from the IAF or runway, you can then descend to a lower altitude in a stairstep fashion. > Is it plausible that the missing glide slope would have resulted in the > plane being much lower than it should have been in its approach ? The glide slope had been out of service for a month, and hundreds of aircraft landed uneventfully. In some footage, you can see a flat, circular dirt area with a white antenna in the center. This is the middle marker beacon! Just wild speculation on my part; possibly the pilot confused the middle marker for the inner marker...a profound blunder if this is what happened. The altitude over the middle marker at Guam is 2100 feet according to a commercial pilot friend. > How common is it for the glide slope to be inoperational for airports > that handle 747s on a daily basis ? Is this a no-brainer for pilots when > it is missing, or does this require a lot more attention ? All approaches and landings require a lot of attention! As a pilot, believing *any* aspect of a flight is a "no brainer" can leave you very dead! Nonetheless, the inoperative glide slope should not have posed any unusual challenge, IMHO. Hope this helps put things in perspective. Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:22 From: jwmson@webtv.net (John Williamson) Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WebTV Subscriber I have not heard what approach KAL801 was flying. Guam International has several approaches. Field elevation is 297'; runway 6L touchdown zone elevation is 256'.' The ILS (NOTAMed out?) has a decision height of 456'. The minimum descent altitude (MDA) for the localizer only approach is 560'. The VOR/DME approach has a 660' MDA with the missed approach point 2.5 miles past the UNZ vortac and .8 short of the threshold for 6L. The UNZ vortac is at 680' MSL. Since the impact site was close to the vortac, one news report speculated that the pilot was looking for a zero DME reading for the threshold which would put him at the 660' MDA over the vortac. (The vortac at Kimpo Airfield in Seoul is at midifeld.) Another report implied he was flying the VOR approach which has an 860' MDA. From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:22 From: don@toyunix.zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Identifying Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Wolery Reply-To: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz In article , John Liebson wrote: >The two fuselages are different also, of course, the 75 being quite a >bit slimmer than the 76. The 757 shares its cockpit section design with the 767, which on the narrower fuselage give the 757 gives a very distinctive low-slung nose. The length is a bit of a giveaway too -- my reaction on first looking down the aisle of a 757 was, "where does it stop?" -- don From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:22 From: Wilken <"wilken@wilken"@atl.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: DC9-15 (was Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unknown Organization Reply-To: "wilken@wilken"@atl.mindspring.com Edward Hahn wrote: > In article , Mike wrote: > >NW operates -10, -30, -40, -50 and -80s. I've never heard of a -15 before, > >prehaps it is a variant of the -10? Note there are also no -20s. If > >Republic did operate them then I can't say where they went. > > Among the differences between a -10 and a -15 version of the DC9, is, (from > what I recall) the additional of leading edge slats to the wing. In the dash series the first digit is the manafacture series such as DC9-10. The second digit in the dash is the Airline designation. -15 just happens to be Northwest. Same as a -88 is Delta and a -83 is I beleive American. (yes the MD88 is really type certified as a DC9-88) I've never seen a -15 to have slats though unless some airline did some special work. To the best of my knowledge slats on the DC-9 didnt appear until the -30. From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:23 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC9-15 (was 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 >> Among the differences between a -10 and a -15 version of the DC9, is, (from >> what I recall) the additional of leading edge slats to the wing. >In the dash series the first digit is the manafacture series such as >DC9-10. The second digit in the dash is the Airline designation. -15 >just happens to be Northwest. Same as a -88 is Delta and a -83 is I >beleive American. You appear to be confused with Boeing's designation scheme, which includes a two-character customer code after the series designator (as in -2xx, or 747SP-xx). For details, see ftp://ftp.chicago.com/chicago/airliners/boeing-code. Lockheed, at least with the L-1011, encoded the customer in the serial number. For example, sn 193A-1002 was the 2nd L-1011 built (002) and was built for Eastern Airlines (193A). For a list of customer codes see http://www.cyserv.com/dyencer/tristar/htmls/fleetlist.html. There's some logic to the L-1011 series designations, but it gets pretty convoluted. Douglas (and McDonnell Douglas) designations do not encode the customer in either the model or serial number. An MD-82 is simply an MD-81 with more powerful engines and higher MGTOW, while an MD-83 is beefier yet. An MD-88 is an MD-82 with a glass cockpit. American does have MD-83s, but so do Continental and TWA and probably many others. All three airlines also have MD-82s. To complete the picture, Airbus does not encode a customer code, but the model numbers are a bit more descriptive than the DAC models. After the series digit comes two more digits indicating engine type and specific model. United's A320s, for example, are A320-232 models -- 200 series, 3 = IAE V2500, 2 = second V2500 version (V2527-A5) used on the A320-200. Other carrier(s) fly A320-231 models, with a different, most likely lower thrust version of the V2500. Northwest's A320-211s have the first CFM56 version used on the A320-200. > (yes the MD88 is really type certified as a DC9-88) No, quite the contrary, it's the first MD-8x which was *not* certified as a DC-9-8x. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Aug 8 05:41:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 08 Aug 97 05:41:23 From: Patt Subject: Re: De-icing airplane wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HOU Reply-To: address@bottom.net Steven J. Lorenc wrote: > Could someone tell me who is responsible for the de-icing of wings? > Does each individual airline have it's own crew for that? I'm looking > for either the names of some of the manufacturers of the trucks or the > companies which supply the service. Regarding your first question... the Captain (PIC) makes that determination. There are circumstances where the Captain's authority is usurped, however. I landed in CLE last winter with a clean airplane... no trace of ice on the airframe. We were on the ground approximately :45 min. There was no precip during that time and just prior to departure time the airplane was inspected by myself and the F/O .. we jointly determined the airplane was clean and de-icing was not required. When we called for clearance to 'push', ground control replied that the de-ice pad was full, and we were given an estimated taxi time to the de-ice pad. I replied we were a 'through' flight, had been on the ground for less than an hour, there had been no precipitation during that time, the airplane was clean, we didn't require de-icing, and requested taxi for take-off. We were informed by ground control that the CLE Airport operations manager (not an airline employee, not an FAA employee, but a City of Cleveland civilian appointed bureaucrat [and probably not a pilot]) had "declared 'Winter Operations' in effect", and we *must* be de-iced prior to departure; we would not be given taxi clearance until we were de-iced. I left the cockpit, and called ground control on the Jetway phone and asked if the Airport Operations Manager would also accept responsibility if I slid off the taxiway and got stuck in the mud. Nuff said. So... it might be said that contrary to to the FAR's there are times the Captain is not the 'final authority' and is responsible for the flight only when some "expert" decides to pass the buck. And.. you are familiar with the definition of an 'expert' are you not? "x" is an unknown quantity. A "spert" is a drip under pressure. Patt mailto:pattmcd@swbell.net From kls Sat Aug 9 02:28:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:27 From: "Stefano P. Pagiola" Subject: Re: DC9-15 (was Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Wilken <"wilken@wilken"@atl.mindspring.com> wrote: >> Among the differences between a -10 and a -15 version of >> the DC9, is, (from what I recall) the additional of leading >> edge slats to the wing. > > In the dash series the first digit is the manafacture > series such as DC9-10. The second digit in the dash is > the Airline designation. -15 just happens to be Northwest. > Same as a -88 is Delta and a -83 is I beleive American. > (yes the MD88 is really type certified as a DC9-88) > I've never seen a -15 to have slats though unless some > airline did some special work. To the best of my > knowledge slats on the DC-9 didnt appear until the -30. Sorry, but you're confusing the Boeing and Douglas numbering schemes. Of course, Douglas is now part of Boeing, but still... For Boeing, the first digit after the dash indicates the series and the subsequent two digits indicate the customer. Thus 757-223 is a model 757, series 200, built for American (customer number 23). With Douglas, the first digit after the dash indicates the series and the second indicates a variant of that series. Thus DC-9-11 is a DC-9 series 10, first major variant of that series. DC-9-12 would be the second variant of the series 10, and so on. DC-9-83 is simply the third variant of the DC-9-80; in this case a variant with longer range than the earlier -81 and -82 variants. The -88 should really have been called -84, since it came after the -83, but by the time Douglas produced the -88, it had already produced an -87 (which was actually different enough from the other -80s that it really deserved its own series number; -87 was chosen for marketing reasons -- it was first delivered in 1987 -- not out of logic). Anyway, Delta (who was the first to order the -88 didn't want a model number that suggested its airplane was less advanced than the -87, so -88 was assigned. And by the way, the MD-88 really is an MD-88. Look at the manufacturer's plate someday (on the inside of the passenger entry door at front left, facing forward, roughly eye level) and you'll see. All other -80s are DC-9-80s, but the MD-88 is an MD-88. And the MD-90 is an MD-90. All clear? Of course, when the MD-90 came out, Douglas didn't follow their previous scheme. Now MD-90 is the model number and variants of it are indicated by dashed numbers, beginning with -30, for long and convoluted reasons. ie there's a MD-90-30, rather than a MD-91, which is what it should have been under the old scheme. Similarly with the MD-95. To quote Shakespeare: " as clear as is the summer's sun..." [Henry V:I.ii.103] Stefano -- All opinions are my own. Check out my web site (under construction) at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/ From kls Sat Aug 9 02:28:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:28 From: john@pegase.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: O'Hare Accident References: <01bca1d1$c7c8e580$b1689cce@john> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Me at home with my cat On 05 Aug 97 17:45:51 , in , m@bang.org wrote: >"jdobyns" wrote: >> My understanding is that modern jetliners have the ability to take off >> safely even if one engine fails on takeoff. If so, did they ever figure >> out why the one flight leaving Chicago in the late 70's crashed after an >> engine fell off? > >There is a significant difference between an engine failing to produce thrust >and an engine separating from a wing. Certification requires demonstration >only of the former. The latter can be expected to do considerable damage to >the wing during separation. An example follows. [snip tale of Orion losing an engine or two] The October 1994 edition of "Pilot" magazine carried an excellently frightening tale of an ancient Boeing 707-321B (5N-MAS) freighter which lost both starboard engines in turbulence over the French Alps in 1992. Having taken off half an hour before at maximum weight, and with half the leading edge also gone, they could not maintain altitude, and ended up landing downwind at Istres on their 4,000 meter runway, built as an emergency landing strip for the Space Shuttle. When they tried to lower the flaps, the starboard wing caught fire, but despite this they executed a downwind landing, 23 tons over maximum landing weight on two engines - landing speed about 200 knots. Despite all this, the crew all got out and the cargo was recovered undamaged... Corrosion in the No.3 engine pylon caused that one to fall off, and it took No.4 with it. Both engines were found in the Alps about 800 meters apart. You can probably get a back issue or a reprint from Pilot if you want to read the full story, ring them on +44 171 498 2506, or email them at pilotmagazine@compuserve.com -- John Wright From kls Sat Aug 9 02:28:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:28 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: O'Hare Accident References: <01bca1d1$c7c8e580$b1689cce@john> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , mike@cintos.com wrote: >It had been suggested that if the crew reacted quickly enough to retract >the other wing's flaps, the crash could have been avoided. I find that >suggestion to be a long (cheap) shot by armchair pilots. > >[Moderator's Note: Not to mention that simply retracting the other >flaps would have caused *both* wings to stall. In any case, lots >has previously been said in sci.aeronautics.airliners about this >crash -- see http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html for the >group's archives. -- Karl] Things I've read in the past suggest that had they lowered the nose, the stall could have been prevented. That would have then given them time to deal with the asymmetrical flap situation. I believe this scenario had been sucessfully flown in simulators using that technique. If I recall correctly, at the time, procedures called for an increase in pitch, presumably to the two-engine Vy (best rate of climb speed). I believe today procedures call for a check that it is indeed only an engine failure and the engine has not departed the airfcraft. BTW, I think both wings stalling together is much easier to deal with than one stalled and one not due to the flap mismatch. Recovering from normal stalls is part of basic flight training and I dare say every airplane pilot has done plenty of stall recoveries in the simulator. As long as you keep the wings level, you can "fly" a plane all day in a stall with very little risk. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Schaumburg, IL, USA From kls Sat Aug 9 02:28:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:28 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: O'Hare Accident References: <01bca1d1$c7c8e580$b1689cce@john> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Things I've read in the past suggest that had they lowered the nose, the >stall could have been prevented. That would have then given them time to >deal with the asymmetrical flap situation. The NTSB report doesn't quite say that: ... the stall speed for the left wing increased to 159 KIAS [knots indicated air speed]. ... the first officer continued to comply with carrier procedures and maintained the commanded pitch attitude; the flight director command bars dictated pitch attitudes which decelerated the aircraft toward V2, and at V2+6, 159 KIAS, the roll to the left began. ... Since the roll to the left began at V2+6 and since the pilots were aware that V2 was well above the aircraft's stall speed, they probably did not suspect that the roll to the left indicated a stall. ... The simulator tests showed that the aircraft could have been flown successfully above 159 KIAS, or if the roll onset was recognized as a stall, the nose could have been lowered, and the aircraft accelerated out of the stall regime. They talk about lowering the nose as a part of stall recovery, not as a means of preventing the stall in the first place. > I believe this scenario had been sucessfully flown in simulators > using that technique. Continuing from the NTSB report: However, the stall warning system, which provided a warning based on the 159 KIAS stall speed, was funcitoning on the successful simulator flights. Although several pilots were able to recover control of the aircraft after the roll began, these pilots were all aware of the circumstances of the accident. All participating pilots agreed that based upon the accident circumstances and the lack of available warning systems, it was not reasonable to expect the pilots of Flight 191 either to have recognized the beginning of the roll as a stall or to recover from the roll. The safety board concurs. Recovery, not prevention, and that only if they had the stall warning, which lacked redundancy in the design of the DC-10 and which was disabled by loss of the #1 engine. -- 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 Aug 9 02:28:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:29 From: drela@mit.edu (Mark Drela) Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology In article , Wally writes: > At the expense of sounding stupid, could anyone explain the > mathematical relationship of thrust(rocket or jet) and horsepower. > More precisely, how does one convert from one to the other. I can't > begin to relate how long and often I've pondered this question. Any > help would be greatly appreciated. Depends what you mean by "power". "Propulsive power", also called "thrust power" is defined as Thrust * Flight_Velocity. This definition can be used for any isolated propulsive device. So the thrust power of a powerplant depends on the flight speed. When sitting on the runway, the thrust power is zero. There is also "shaft power", or "mechanical power", which is defined as Shaft_torque * Rotation_rate. This only makes sense for engines which have an output shaft -- IC engines and turboprops. This is not necessarily zero when sitting on the runway with the throttle open. Shaft power has no meaning for pure jets. The propulsive efficiency for an IC engine-prop combo is usually defined as propulsive_power/shaft_power. You can't define a comparable efficiency for a jet. I suppose you could define an overall thermodynamic efficiency as propulsive_power / fuel_heating_rate for any device. But this is equivalent to SFC which is a more practical measure of the same thing. For turboprops, the picture gets more fuzzy since part of their output comes through the shaft, and some comes out as direct exhaust thrust. You can get creative and define "equivalent shaft power" = shaft power + thrust*velocity/prop_efficiency or "equivalent thrust" = prop_efficiency*shaft_power/velocity + thrust to allow you to compare any type of powerplant in terms of the equivalent thrust or equivalent shaft power. Mark Drela First Law of Aviation: MIT Aero & Astro "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory" From kls Sat Aug 9 02:28:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:29 From: Celestar 9V-SJH Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 05:41 AM 8/8/97, you wrote: >>based on 206 seats and year-round non-stop operation >>between Singapore and Los Angeles. That's nearly 80 seats less than >>the current B777 that SIA is operating. 206 seats on a B777-200??? Wow..... that's really spacious!!!!!! >>SIA does not have any B747-100/200s for replacement by the A340-600. And >>they are already operating 37 B747-400s, with almost 8 more on firm order >>and 10 on options (the largest fleet of 747-400 in the world). I doubt >>they'll acquire the A340-600 for expansion too. Their order for 61 B777s >>should be sufficient. >Some of the -400 are almost ten years old. Supposedly, in another >two to three years, the first batch of the -400 should be replaced. >The B777-300/-300X, as well as the A340-600, can be potential >candidates. Yes, I think you've got a point there. Singapore Airlines still has 9 more B747-312s (3 on lease to other airlines), which can be replaced by the A340-600. SIA exercised 2 of its B777 options to B777-300s. Anyone knows which aircraft they'll be replacing? Could just be a fleet expansion. From kls Sat Aug 9 02:28:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:29 From: Celestar 9V-SJH Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 05:41 AM 8/8/97, you wrote: >The situation of Singapore Airlines is special. They have still 41 >options for the B777. I don't know of any options for the A340. The 41 >options were signed with the B777-100X in mind. If the B777-200X is not >corresponding to their needs what are they going to do with all these >options? >A part may be converted to -200IGW's (for traffic growth), the other >ones may never be converted to a firm order. Canceling the options may >not be very cheap. Singapore Airlines currently has 8 A340-300Es (named "Celestar"), 9 more on firm orders, and 20 more on options. To be more accurate, the 41 options include 10 for Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise Pte Ltd (SALE). The other 31 options are for SIA. Well, I believe that SIA is interested in the B777-300. They have already exercised 2 of their B777 options to the B777-300, to be delivered in 1998. From kls Sat Aug 9 02:28:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:29 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Stuart Feigin wrote: > elberfeld@sprintmail.com wrote: > > An earlier reply to my posting quoted an "Airliners" magazine article > > which mentioned that Sterling did, in fact, fly a CPH-KEF-YQX-OMA-SFO > > (whew)service in 1970. It did not say how long this service lasted. > > Sterling was no stranger to long, multi-stop charters with Caravelles > > during this time period. Their crash in Dubai in 1972 was of a > > Colombo (Sri Lanka) to CPH flight. That's (roughly) about as far > > as from CPH to SFO, but with less overwater flying. Either way, that's > > a long haul on a Caravelle, cheap charter fare notwithstanding. Around 1975-1980 (IIRC) a short-lived airline flew Caravelle(s) out of LAX. Does anyone recall more details? Ken Ishiguro From kls Sat Aug 9 02:28:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:30 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca wrote: > Karl Swartz wrote: > > to the crash, which occurred at 2:35 am local time in heavy rain. > > NTSB chairman James Hall said the glide slope portion of the ILS was > > not functioning. > > Could someone put this missing glide slope in perspective ? > > Just how important is it to a landing in darkness with little or no > visibility ? What other instruments/information would have been > available to the pilot to help him stay on track to the runway ? Other posts have done a good job describing the function of the ILS and glide slope. When I was obtaining my instrument rating at Honolulu International back in the 1970s, I shot full ILS approaches and localizer-only appproaches, mostly at night as that proved the easiest time to schedule lessons. The Cessna 206 I was flying did not have an autopilot so all my approaches were flown by hand. If anything, the localizer approach was easier as I merely had to descend in steps to specific altitudes at specific points and then level off until reaching the next point of descent which was marked either by a marker beacon (radio signal, not a light) or crossing a VOR (another type of radio signal). The rate of descent didn't matter as long as you didn't descend before reaching the descent point or descend below the next specified altitude. The full ILS with glide slope was a little harder (without an autopilot) simply because you had to maintain a specific rate of descent throughout the approach. But both approach types are easily mastered by a competent student instrument pilot with only a hundred or so hours of total flight time. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Aug 9 02:28:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:30 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , *NoSpam*elberfeld@sprintmail.com wrote: > Speaking of B-777 wingtips: To my knowledge, no carrier has ordered > the folding wingtips option. (Perhaps because they knew it would only > be a matter of time before somebody would try to take off with the > wingtips folded..:-) ). Does anyone know if Boeing still offers this > option? I believe we made an operational mockup to prove the principal, but as gate dimensions don't seem to be a problem for the 777's operators, there has been no requirement for the heavy folding wing option. Obviously if a customer wanted it we could supply it because it does work. But folding wingtips and their associated structure and activating systems don't pay for the priviledge of riding on the airplane like passengers and freight do. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Aug 9 02:28:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:30 From: Robert Carpenter Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust in Air (was Trident/More Weirdness)) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: rcarpen@EROLS.COM Chris Elberfeld wrote: >> There were two other hard landings of DC-8's (Alitalia and Icelandic, I > think) caused by premature spoiler deployment not longe after this > accident. Eventually, an AD was issued to modify the spoiler control > system. A friend, who drove Viscounts for Capitol Airlines at the time, had a story about one of them. He said that the flat (or slightly reverse) prop pitch for braking was normally activated by the oleos compressing as the plane's weight was applied to the main gear. However, on one occasion, something went wrong and the propellor braking cut in as soon as it was armed, fortunately over the runway. The plane then simulated a rock, and broke its back in the HARD landing. There was no mention of serious injuries. Bob Carpenter From kls Sat Aug 9 02:28:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Aug 97 02:28:30 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Chris Elberfeld wrote: > Does anyone out there have cabin or seat dimension data for the > Caravelle compared to, say, the DC-9? The Caravelle had an (interior ?) fuselage diameter of 2.97 m, compared to the 3.14 m of the DC-9. Regards ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:20 From: Tom Gibson Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: San Diego State University Kees de Lezenne Coulande wrote: > There might be more to this than meets the eye. Many years ago > (probably Spring 1979) I was photographing landing aircraft at Miami (MIA). > When I had developed the pictures, it turned out that I had photographed > the same National Airlines DC-10-30 on successive days with and without the > centre gear. This didn't seem right, so I checked the photographs very > carefully for airframe differences, but did not find any. There is a photo of a National DC-10-30 at LAX without the center gear extended in the new book "Airliners at LAX". LAX is also hot, but not high, so National must have had some sort of policy about the center gear (or a National crew liked to do it sometimes!). -- Tom Gibson Classic Airliner Page: http://members.aol.com/TGFltsim/ From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:21 From: ergos Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Reply-To: ergos@pacbell.net Somebody wrote: > > 3) What is in the inside of an aircraft tyre? I mean is it > > filled/pumped up with air like that of car tyres or is it built > > as a > > solid whole piece?? > > Air. It's construction is very similar to a car tire. Actually exagerated. Construction is quite dissimilar to a car tire: 1) there is only a very small proportion of radials, eventhough the advantage over crossed plies is considerable and all recently qualified major planes are radialized; 2) for radials, there are no crossed plies in the belt, in part to make sure the tire has no cornering stiffness, so that when the plane lands in a cross-wind the tires do not produce cross (Y) forces despite rolling at a large slip (cornering) angle. And for mass reduction and strength, steel is restricted to the beads; crown/belt is almost always nylon. Ergos. From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:22 From: Bill Wright Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ESInet - Charlottesville, VA I was able to understand this best by thinking in terms of electricity: Thrust = Voltage, (the force required to do work) HP = Wattage, (the rate at which work is done in a given amount of time) There is a velocity at which thrust & power are equal, but I don't remember what it is. I think that it was around 400 MPH. Bill Wright, Capt., UAL, Retired From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:22 From: Patt Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: = TOS = Reply-To: click-on-address@below.net Wally wrote: > At the expense of sounding stupid, could anyone explain the > mathematical relationship of thrust(rocket or jet) and horsepower. > More precisely, how does one convert from one to the other. I can't > begin to relate how long and often I've pondered this question. Any > help would be greatly appreciated. Wally.. although Mark's answer is quite technical, an oversimplified, 'rule of thumb' is.. 1 horsepower is about 2.5 lbs of thrust. For example, your Cessna 150 with 100 hp would perform about the same if it had a 250 lb thrust jet engine installed. On the other hand, a CFM-56 high bypass fan engine (Boeing 737) rated at 25,000 lbs thrust is, for comparison purposes, about the same as a 10,000 hp reciprocating engine. This conversion is not terribly accurate, but the rule of thumb of 1 hp = 2 1/2 lbs thrust is more than adequate for 'hangar flying'. By the way, as Mark stated, the conversion gets more inaccurate and confusing when you talk about turbo-prop engines because now mixing apples and oranges, ie: a propeller connected (either by a shaft or free turbine) to a jet engine. On the Allison 501-D13 engine, for example (Electra/P-3/CV-580), power is displayed in the cockpit on torquemeters.. which are run thru a mini-computer and you read 'horsepower'. The torquemeters read from 0 to 4,000 hp. There is a small benefit from the thrust out the tailpipe, but if I remember correctly its only about 300 lbs thrust. So... for horsepower to thrust (and vice versa) you'll be in the ballpark using 1 : 2.5 ratio. Patt mailto:pattmcd@swbell.net From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:22 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Mark Drela wrote: > In article , Wally writes: > > At the expense of sounding stupid, could anyone explain the > > mathematical relationship of thrust(rocket or jet) and horsepower. > > More precisely, how does one convert from one to the other. I can't > > begin to relate how long and often I've pondered this question. Any > > help would be greatly appreciated. > > Depends what you mean by "power". > > "Propulsive power", also called "thrust power" is defined as > Thrust * Flight_Velocity. This definition can be used for any > isolated propulsive device. So the thrust power of a powerplant > depends on the flight speed. When sitting on the runway, the > thrust power is zero. Isn't it also true that it should be possible to define a power rating for a jet or turbofan engine sitting in a test stand or on an aircraft with the brakes locked in terms of how much power it is producing in the form of moving air, assuming all the air was at rest prior to being ingested by the engine? Basically something along the lines of this: Energy in a moving mass= 1/2 MV**2 Power=energy/unit time, thus: Power= (1/2)*(mass of air moved / second)*(velocity of air)**2 If the mass moved is in kg/second and the velocity is in meters/second, the power rating would be in watts. To get HP, take the rating in watts and divde by 746. But the horsepower the engine _applies_ to the airframe (the "thrust power" from the previous post) is still thrust*velocity of the _airframe_ not the _air_ Definitions, definitions... :-) -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:23 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl In article Mark Drela, drela@mit.edu writes: > propulsive_power / fuel_heating_rate Yes -- and here is a paradox. Since propulsive_power is proportional to velocity, and velocity is basically unlimited (i.e. I can define a reference frame in which the aircraft is moving near the speed of light), the efficiency can be greater than 100%! It took me a long time to figure out the solution to this paradox. I will wait a bit before posting it, so the readers can have the fun of figuring it out. From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:23 From: luisma@spainmail.com (Luis Manuel Perez Llera) Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unisource Espana NEWS SERVER El día 08 Aug 97 05:41:15 , Wally dijo: >At the expense of sounding stupid, could anyone explain the >mathematical relationship of thrust(rocket or jet) and horsepower. >More precisely, how does one convert from one to the other. I can't >begin to relate how long and often I've pondered this question. Any >help would be greatly appreciated. Power is thrust times speed. A common question is "what is the power produced by a jet engine at max thrust when the aircraft is braked" The answer is ZERO. From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:23 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Reply-To: "P. Wezeman" On 8 Aug 1997, Wally wrote: > At the expense of sounding stupid, could anyone explain the > mathematical relationship of thrust(rocket or jet) and horsepower. > More precisely, how does one convert from one to the other. I can't > begin to relate how long and often I've pondered this question. Any > help would be greatly appreciated. Thrust is a unit of force. Force times distance is mechanical work, which is a form of energy. For example, if you were to drag a table for a distance of ten feet against a frictional force of fifty pounds you would have to expend five hundred foot-pounds of energy (ten feet times fifty pounds). Power is energy per unit time. If it took you five seconds to move the table, you would be producing a power of five hundred foot-pounds per five seconds, or one hundred foot-pounds per second. (Force times distance) divided by time equals power. This is equivalent to force times (distance divided by time), and since distance divided by time equals speed, then power equals thrust times speed, which is a handier formula. In the example, your speed is ten feet per five seconds, which is two feet per second. Multiplying this by the force of fifty pounds gives fifty pounds times two feet per second or fifty foot-pounds per second, the same answer as before. A horsepower is a unit of power defined as 550 foot-pounds per second. So if you take an airplanes thrust in pounds and multiply it by the plane's speed in feet per second, you will get the power in foot-pounds per second. Divide this figure by 550 foot pounds per second per horsepower to get the power in horsepower. For example, suppose an aircraft is flying at six hundred miles per hour with ten thousand pounds of engine thrust. Convert the speed to feet per second by multiplying by 5,280 feet per mile and dividing by 3,600 seconds per hour. This gives 880 feet per second. Multiplying this by the thrust of ten thousand pounds gives a power of 8,800,000 foot pounds per second. Dividing this by 550 foot pounds per second per horsepower gives 16,000 horsepower. This is thrust horsepower, which is useful power actually delivered to the airplane. Typically, an airplane propeller is about 80 per cent efficient at converting engine shaft horspower into thrust horsepower at design cruise speed. Jet engines have propulsive efficiencies of 30 to 80 per cent at converting the power of the jet blast into thrust horsepower at cruise speed. At low speeds, such as at the start of the takeoff run, a jet or propeller has a certain maxmum static thrust, and the thrust horsepower will be quite low, in fact it will be zero at zero speed. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:23 From: Wayne McCandless Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In article Wally, gordow@cts.com writes: >At the expense of sounding stupid, could anyone explain the >mathematical relationship of thrust(rocket or jet) and horsepower. >More precisely, how does one convert from one to the other. I can't >begin to relate how long and often I've pondered this question. Any >help would be greatly appreciated. Not a stupid question at all. You might want to try a bit of dimensional analysis to help work through the confusion: 1 HP =3D 33,000 lb-ft/min =3D 550 lb-ft/sec; right? -- and -- Thrust is in units of lb-force. Therefore, An engine pushing a plane along at a (true) airspeed of 550 ft/sec is delivering one horsepower for each pound of thrust it produces. Left as an exercise for the student: B747 sits at end of runway all 4 engines at full howl, brakes locked. Each engine is providing about 44K pounds of push. Velocity of plane is zero. How many horsepower is being delivered? Where does the =B3missing=B2 power go, if anywhere? From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:23 From: jtk@ne.mediaone.net (John Kohl) Subject: differing MGTOW for same model aircraft operated by different airlines? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NetBSD Kernel Hackers `R` Us [Sorry for the long delay between the original message and this follow-up; my ISP has had lots of problems with moderated newsgroups --jtk] >>>>> "Karl" == Karl Swartz writes: In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: [ a variety of statistics regarding different MGTOWs for different carriers' delivered B757s] What differs between the aircraft ordered by the different carriers that affects the MGTOW, i.e. why do they not all have the same MGTOW for the same variant of the same model aircraft? Is it just a reflection of the different cabin appointments, or are there other structural/mechanical/fuel tank/something else differences? -- John Kohl Hacking on NetBSD/i386 when I can. See . From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:23 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.NOSPAM.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: differing MGTOW for same model aircraft operated by different airlines? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >What differs between the aircraft ordered by the different carriers that >affects the MGTOW, i.e. why do they not all have the same MGTOW for the >same variant of the same model aircraft? Is it just a reflection of the >different cabin appointments, or are there other >structural/mechanical/fuel tank/something else differences? Most airliners can take off with a full payload at MGTOW, or a full load of fuel, but not both. More fuel means greater range, so by increasing MGTOW you either increase range with a full payload, or increase payload at maximum range. However, higher MGTOW usually requires heavier structures which add to the empty weight of the aircraft. If you don't need the full capabilities of the aircraft, there's no point in carrying around the extra weight. That's why most US carriers have 757s with lower MGTOW than the maximum -- most are used on domestic flights, so the longest flights they need to handle are MIA-SEA or BOS-SFO, both of which are just a bit over 2,700 miles, well short of what a fully optioned 757 is capable of. Higher MGTOW may also mean more powerful engines, which cost more and may require more maintenance because they're being operated at higher thrusts. For example, United's new 767-300s intended for domestic use will have 52,000 lbs thrust PW4052 engines, compared to their 767-300(ER)s which have 60,000 lbs thrust PW4060 engines. Aircraft with greater MGTOW may have additional fuel tanks, but that's more an effect than a cause -- without the higher weight, the plane can't lift the extra fuel, so there's no point adding the extra tanks and their associated equipment. In some cases, the difference may be nothing more than what the manufacturer charges. A higher MGTOW aircraft is more capable, so the manufacturer can charge more. Other than engine choice, each 777-200(IGW) is essentially identical -- ordering higher MGTOW is simply a matter of paying more money to Boeing and receiving a certification for the higher weight. Some software changes on the plane, I'd imagine, but that's about it. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:23 From: bizfixer@aol.com (Bizfixer) Subject: Re: Trans-Atlantic Caravelles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com There's a Caravelle parked at VNY - has been since early '80s. Might be a source of clues. It's by the big hangars on the East side. bizfixer@aol.com From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:23 From: "Kevin J. Walls" Subject: PW JT8D-9A versus -15 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Aircraft Portfolio Management I am having great difficulty convincing my airline that there is nothing wrong with the PW JT8D-9A on a B737-200. The airline wants only PW JT8D-15's on their B737-200s. Can anyone explain the main differences and help me "sell" the 9A as a good workhorse. From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:24 From: "nite rider" Subject: Fed Ex MD-11 crash was mechanical Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Big and Purple Reliable "Purple" sources have indicated that the crash of Fed Ex 14, an MD-11 landing at Newark, NJ, was due to mechanical failure of a wheel assembly due to internal defects. After failing internally, the wheel assembly caused a chain reaction of failures, first of the associated strut, which in turn caused a loss of control of the aircraft. The crew flew a stabilized approach to landing with a sink rate of approximately 460 fpm, with a landing impact of about 1.2 g. These findings apparently will absolve the crew of responsibility in the crash. Nite Rider From kls Sun Aug 17 01:57:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 01:57:24 From: wayne_dohnal@ccm.co.*intel*.com (Wayne Dohnal) Subject: $%#% news media! (UA 737 engine failure in Portland, Or) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Intel Corp A United 737 lost an engine on departure from Portland, Or. Friday morning and returned with an uneventful landing. The first report I heard on the local news said that they dumped fuel before landing. I didn't think the 737 could dump fuel. Can it? And it was only on a 600 mile flight (to SFO), so I wouldn't think they'd have full fuel anyway. Later in the afternoon the news report said "they switched over to the other engine and landed safely". Makes me wonder what the general public thinks after hearing this jibberish. Does the media ever get it right? -- Wayne Dohnal Not representing my employer email address is spam-protected From kls Sun Aug 17 15:41:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 15:41:08 From: Iain Stuart Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: What ? Many Moons ago, the following question was asked..... >> The JT9D was flight tested >> on a B-52 and the RB.211 was flight tested on the port pylon of a >> VC-10. How was the CF6 flight tested? Perhaps on a C-5A, from whose >> TF-39 engines the CF6 was developed? On what, then, were the TF-39 >> engines flight tested? OK, maybe I'm being the Devil's Advocate here, but Why bother ? >From 60 years of gas turbine flying, improved Simulated Facilities, improved mathematical modelling and suchlike, there is minimal info to be gleaned from flight testing in an unrepresentative environment. All it does is give the Luddites a warm feeling. And that is MY opinion. ----------- Iain Stuart aka big-iain From kls Sun Aug 17 15:41:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 15:41:08 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>> The JT9D was flight tested >>> on a B-52 and the RB.211 was flight tested on the port pylon of a >>> VC-10. How was the CF6 flight tested? Perhaps on a C-5A, from whose >>> TF-39 engines the CF6 was developed? On what, then, were the TF-39 >>> engines flight tested? >OK, maybe I'm being the Devil's Advocate here, but Why bother ? >>From 60 years of gas turbine flying, improved Simulated Facilities, >improved mathematical modelling and suchlike, there is minimal info to >be gleaned from flight testing in an unrepresentative environment. If you're referring to the TF-39, it appeared in the 1960s. There may be 60 years of gas turbine flying now (actually more like 55), but much of that experience didn't exist 30+ years ago, and the simulation facilities were primitive compared to what exists today. The TF-39 was the first high-bypass ratio turbofan, too, and probably 2.5 times more powerful than any previous jet engine. If you're talking about flight testing of engines in general, Boeing's propulsion people and Pratt and Whitney felt that you were correct and that flight testing the PW4084 (the first Pratt engine for the 777) was not necessary. It was a derivative of an existing, proven design, and they had done extensive ground testing and simulation of it, so they didn't expect to learn anything from flight testing. Others in the 777 program generally accepted that position, but since nobody had ever relied on ground test and simulation data alone, they thought it would be wise to flight test the engine to prove that they had in fact learned everything on the ground. A sanity check, just as they built a mockup of the 777's section 41 (the nose and cockpit area) to validate the CAD tools, which were supposed to make mockups unnecessary. On one of the first test flights (on the first 747), the PW4084 had a compressor stall. This turned out to be due to insufficient rigidity in the fan housing. At takeoff power, under high angle-of-attack, and with a cross-wind, the fan housing ovalised too much and impacted the fan blades. It's a good thing they did go ahead with flight testing! -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Aug 17 15:41:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 15:41:08 From: "Steven G. Thomson" Subject: Re: $%#% news media! (UA 737 engine failure in Portland, Or) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc Wayne Dohnal wrote in article ... > A United 737 lost an engine on departure from Portland, Or. Friday morning > and returned with an uneventful landing. The first report I heard on the > local news said that they dumped fuel before landing. I didn't think the > 737 could dump fuel. Can it? ... > Does the media ever get it right? The 737-200 did not have fuel dump capabilities because its MGTOW and MLW were very close. I can't speak for the big fan versions, but I suspect they are the same. As for the media: I have usually found they frequently get it wrong with things I know about, which leads me to the obvious conclusion. They must be also getting it wrong with the things I don't know about! -- Steven G. Thomson Arnold, Missouri From kls Sun Aug 17 15:41:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 15:41:09 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: $%#% news media! (UA 737 engine failure in Portland, Or) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The 737-200 did not have fuel dump capabilities because its MGTOW and MLW >were very close. I can't speak for the big fan versions, but I suspect they >are the same. The weights appear to be close enough for the 2nd generation 737s, too, so I'd guess they also have no need for fuel dump. I couldn't find MLW for the 3rd generation 737s. ---- basic ---- --- heaviest -- MGTOW MLW MGTOW MLW 737-300 124,500 114,000 140,000 116,600 737-400 139,000 121,000 150,500 124,000 737-500 116,000 110,000 134,000 110,000 -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sun Aug 17 15:41:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 15:41:09 From: ua747-422@juno.com (Michael W Kopanski) Subject: Re: $%#% news media! (UA 737 engine failure in Portland, Or) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 17 Aug 97 01:57:24 wayne_dohnal@ccm.co.*intel*.com (Wayne Dohnal) writes: >A United 737 lost an engine on departure from Portland, Or. Friday morning >and returned with an uneventful landing. The first report I heard on the >local news said that they dumped fuel before landing. I didn't think the >737 could dump fuel. Can it? And it was only on a 600 mile flight (to >SFO), so I wouldn't think they'd have full fuel anyway. No the 737 doesn't have the ability to dump fuel. And your also right it wouldn't need to for such a small fuel load. Mickey Kopanski UA747-422@juno.com From kls Sun Aug 17 15:41:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 15:41:10 From: "Steven G. Thomson" Subject: Re: DC9-15 (was Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc Wilken <"wilken@wilken"@atl.mindspring.com> wrote in article ... > Edward Hahn wrote: > > Among the differences between a -10 and a -15 version of the DC9, is, > > (from what I recall) the additional of leading edge slats to the wing. > > In the dash series the first digit is the manafacture series such as > DC9-10. The second digit in the dash is the Airline designation. -15 > just happens to be Northwest. Same as a -88 is Delta and a -83 is I > beleive American. (yes the MD88 is really type certified as a DC9-88) > I've never seen a -15 to have slats though unless some airline did > some special work. To the best of my knowledge slats on the DC-9 didnt > appear until the -30. The -15 is a higher gross weight variant, i.e. higher gross weight than the series -14, not an airline designator. The DC-9 series 30, for example, was available in -31, -32, -33 and -34 models, all with different weights and engine ratings. The DC-9 Series 20 was a short fuselage -10 with the wing from the series -30 complete with leading edge slats. It sold in very small numbers, primarily, I believe to SAS. -- Steven G. Thomson Arnold, Missouri From kls Sun Aug 17 15:41:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 15:41:10 From: k_ish Subject: Re: DC9-15 (was Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com In the MD-8X, and MD-9X, the number seems to correspond to the year of introduction. Anyone know for sure?? And if the MD series survives the Boeing buyout, will they have a "year 2000" problem? :-) Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Aug 17 15:41:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 15:41:10 From: richard Subject: Re: DC9-15 (was Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Edward Hahn wrote: > In article , Mike wrote: > >NW operates -10, -30, -40, -50 and -80s. I've never heard of a -15 before, > >prehaps it is a variant of the -10? Note there are also no -20s. If > >Republic did operate them then I can't say where they went. > > Among the differences between a -10 and a -15 version of the DC9, is, (from > what I recall) the additional of leading edge slats to the wing. The -15 is really a variant of the -10 manufactured upon an airline request. The -20 was a special version. To my knowledge only SAS bought them. Presently SAS has sold them. They had -10 Fuselage, -30 wings and -50 engines. I have heard they a hotrod. From kls Sun Aug 17 15:41:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 15:41:10 From: "Stefano P. Pagiola" Subject: Re: DC9-15 (was Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I wrote: > when the MD-90 came out, Douglas > didn't follow their previous scheme. Now MD-90 is the > model number and variants of it are indicated by dashed > numbers, beginning with -30, for long and convoluted > reasons. I've been asked by e-mail to explain what those "long and convoluted reasons" were. OK, here we go. When Douglas began thinking of further developments of the DC-9 Super 80 -- as it was then known --in the early 1980s, it called the proposed new version the DC-9 series 90. This was changed to MD-90 after the historic "DC" designation was dropped in favor of "MD" to more closely associate Long Beach products to parent McDonnell Douglas. The project to which the "90" designation was first applied, however, was not a further stretch but a shrink -- a project that eventually developed into the MD-87. A lengthened version of the MD-80 with V2500 or CFM-56 turbofans was mooted in the mid-1980s, under the designation MD-89, but it wasn't pursued very aggressively. The MD-90 designation was next used to describe a family of aircraft based on the MD-80 fuselage and unducted fan engines such as the GE-36 or the Allison 578-DX. Three versions were proposed: the 114-seat MD-91, 165-seat MD-92, and 180-seat MD-93. The failure of fuel prices to rise as rapidly as had been anticipated led to airline interest waning. The MD-90 family was then re-proposed in V2500-powered versions as the MD-91V, -92V, and -93V. This latest version was launched in October 1989. Now that "80" or "90" was essentially the model number rather than a series number, having only one digit to indicate differences in variants was constraining, especially when multiple lengths (each of which might conceivably spawn variants of their own in the future) were being considered so a new dash number series system was re-instituted, patterned on the previous DC-9 scheme. So the three versions on offer were re-designated MD-90-10 (previously -91V), -30 (ex -92V), and -40 (ex -93V), respectively, with the -20 designation reserved for re-engined MD-80s (which would have been intermediate in length between the -10 and -30). Delta Airlines' initial order for up to 50 MD-90-30s launched that variant. Plans for a family of aircraft were later dropped (with the MD-95 taking over the role the MD-90-10 would have filled), but by the MD-90-30 had acquired its -30 suffix. An MD-90-50 version was being discussed during 1995; this would have been a higher gross weight version of the -30, rather than a stretch. Stefano -- All opinions are my own. Check out my web site (under construction) at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/ From kls Sun Aug 17 15:41:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Aug 97 15:41:10 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust in Air (was Lockheed/More Weirdness)) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Teleport In article , rcarpen@EROLS.COM says... >A friend, who drove Viscounts for Capitol Airlines at the time, had a >story about one of them. He said that the flat (or slightly reverse) >prop pitch for braking was normally activated by the oleos compressing >as the plane's weight was applied to the main gear. However, on one >occasion, something went wrong and the propellor braking cut in as soon >as it was armed, fortunately over the runway.... The C-5 can deploy reverse thrust in the air. The spoilers are meant for ground application, so that there are oleo compression sensors to enforce this. These have been known to fail... brian whatcott Altus OK From news Tue Aug 5 15:20:09 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!204.253.4.5!news.netrox.net!news.this.com!news1.best.com!news.apfel.de!howland.erols.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: roger@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Air Canada and Virgin order Airbus planes Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry Date: 05 Aug 1997 15:20:49 -0400 Organization: Frontier Internet Services Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5s7ueq$4s4$15@kragar.kei.com> References: <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> On 2 Aug 1997 12:03:09 GMT, Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: >2. Long time ago, VS had shown great interest in the B777. I believe > VS had even paid deposits for some B777 slots. So, this is a > significant win for Airbus. An interesting comment was made by chairman Branson that VS's passengers have shown a distinct preference for four-engine aircraft. I've no way of knowing how big a part that this played in the choice of the A340-600 over the 777-200IGW, but these orders for the A340s must show that the big 777s will not reign supreme. -- Roger Chung-Wee Publisher of Caribbean Aviation Newsletter From news Tue Aug 5 15:20:33 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!204.27.64.4!news-out.communique.net!communique!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntprelay.mathworks.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: Re: Air Canada and Virgin order Airbus planes Date: 05 Aug 1997 14:51:17 -0400 Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5s7sne$4s4$11@kragar.kei.com> References: <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> In article <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> Chuanga@cris.com "H Andrew Chuang" writes: >I'm surprised that no one has posted anything about the two orders in >these two newsgourps. Humour mode on please: Maybe thats because the news only emerged on the wires yesterday, these are moderated groups and unlike you who has self-approval rights we, the Great Unwashed, have to wait until a moderator is available to approve our posts. And since the moderator might probably have heard the same news and post it him/herself: why should [I] bother spending that 5 mins. typing out something that will be rejected as redundant? I'll skip the details. Basically, AC is going >to order 3 A330-200s and 5 A340-300s to replace 6 B747 Classics and 2 ^^^ The AC news release mentioned only A330-300s. No mention on engines... one would guess Pratts, eh? Also interesting... the AC news release suggests that next March AC would be the launch customer for the bigger A340s.... guess they haven't seen the Virgin news. -- -Niels From news Tue Aug 5 15:20:33 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!207.126.101.73!supernews.com!news.eecs.umich.edu!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: showie@uoguelph.ca Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Air Canada and Virgin order Airbus planes Date: 05 Aug 1997 15:31:35 -0400 Organization: Biled heids 'r us Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5s7v30$4s4$23@kragar.kei.com> References: <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> In misc.transport.air-industry H Andrew Chuang wrote: :I'm surprised that no one has posted anything about the two orders in :these two newsgourps. I'll skip the details. Basically, AC is going :to order 3 A330-200s and 5 A340-300s to replace 6 B747 Classics and 2 :leased A340-300s. Options on A340-500s and A340-600s are intended to :replace its B747-400s. VS has announced its intent to buy 16 A340-600s Actually the initial order is for 5 A330-300s and 3 A340-300s. The A330-300 is closer in capacity to the 747 than the -200. I really wonder if AC will keep the 767 in it's fleet over the long run, in the interests of fleet commonality, given that the A330-200 is a competitor. Scotty Steve Howie Netnews and Listserv Admin University of Guelph From news Tue Aug 5 15:20:34 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!206.64.182.7!news.thenet.net!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: caribb Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Air Canada and Virgin order Airbus planes Date: 05 Aug 1997 15:22:04 -0400 Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5s7uh5$4s4$16@kragar.kei.com> References: <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> You are right, AC's choice for the new Airbus aircraft is not a surprise. The 747-200s that the A330s will replace were Combi versions that were generally configured for just over 200 passengers which makes if somewhat close to the capacity of the A330. Furthermore the A330-200 is a possible choice in the future for 767 replacements. The 747-100 however had a higher capacity but were old and are more costly today than new planes. I have a feeling Boeing's prediction for future air travel is on the mark in that over time airlines will use smaller aircraft in turn for more direct routes between smaller city pairs rather than funneling them through hugh hubs. Air Canada bought the Canadair Regional jet to avoid such hubs therefore it is logical they'll probably use some of the A330s to start up direct routes to smaller European cities. Furthermoe the A340-500 is being chosen for a nonstop Toronto-Hong King run which will ultimately takes passengers off the Vancouver-Hong Kong run. The 747s are just becoming too big especially when there are better more efficient aircraft to do the same job. If you look at the press release however, the 3rd phase calls for higher capacity aircraft and no specific type is mentioned. This could end up as a purchase for the A3XX if it is needed at that time. Furthermore the 747-400 is staying in the fleet well past the year 2000 so they arn't dumping the big jet completely for quite a while. I've also noticed that this summer there seems to be an unusual increase in the volume of flights to some cities from Canada. Toronto-London and Montreal-Paris have on occasion had anywhere from 10-15 flights in one day on some days in the week. Last Friday there were 11 flights alone to Paris (Air Canada, Air France, Air Transat, Canada 3000, Royal and Corse Air) from Montreal plus another 3 or 4 to other French cities like Marseille, Toulose, Lyon and Nice. Canadain/BA is advertising upwards of 15 flights a day to London from Toronto and Air Canada is claiming a similar number of flights. With that type of volume on traditional high density routes 747s will be flying half empty therefore 767s and A310s are more practical. If the giant plane is not going to be used on those traditional routes then they are not going to be used on lower volume services. This is why, I suppose, American and Delta don't fly 747s as well. There are so many flights leaving new York for London, Paris & Frankfurt each day that between all the airlines and all the flights no one except a few amrket leaders can sustain a 747 size capacity.. best to fight the competition with more flights than larger planes. Now the question remains... will the A3XX ever get off the domputer design screens? From news Wed Aug 6 04:19:56 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!208.146.240.4!frii.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "Michel Gammon" Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Air Canada and Virgin order Airbus planes Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry Date: 05 Aug 1997 15:33:39 -0400 Organization: Sympatico Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5s7v6s$4s4$25@kragar.kei.com> References: <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> H Andrew Chuang wrote in article <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net>... > I'm surprised that no one has posted anything about the two orders in > these two newsgourps. I'll skip the details. Basically, AC is going > to order 3 A330-200s and 5 A340-300s to replace 6 B747 Classics and 2 > leased A340-300s. Options on A340-500s and A340-600s are intended to > replace its B747-400s. VS has announced its intent to buy 16 A340-600s > and 2 A340-300s. For details, you can check the websites of respective > airlines or Airbus website . I believe it is the other way around: 5 330s and 3 A340s. Plus, the A330s are I believe the high gross weight versions, 300 series, and can carry around 290 pax, so they are essentially the current A340 airframe but a twin. Apparently the range will be around 5800 sm, enough for Vancouver-LHR non-stop. > 1. AC's order is not a big surprise, even though there were rumors that > AC might order the B777. With AC's current fleet, the A340 makes > sense. However, I am surprised that AC is replacing the old B747s > with the much smaller A330-200 and A340-300, especially the A330-200 > which is about 60% the size of a B747. See above. Basically, 6 aircraft will replace 6 aircraft: 2 of the 3 A340s will replace the leased A340-300s, and 6 747s are being retired, so you get six for six. Now, at least one of those 747s were flown in combi configuration. With the A330-300, they will be about 75% the pax capacity of a non-combi 747 classic. While I think the AC order makes sound sense, this enthusiast is sad that he won't get the chance to see the big red maple leaf on the tail of a 777. Mike Gammon From news Wed Aug 6 07:37:59 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!204.27.64.4!news-out.communique.net!communique!news2.epix.net!cdc2.cdc.net!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Air Canada and Virgin order Airbus planes Date: 6 Aug 1997 11:51:51 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <5s9ogn$7hf@chronicle.concentric.net> References: <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> <5s7sne$4s4$11@kragar.kei.com> In article <5s7sne$4s4$11@kragar.kei.com>, Niels Sampath wrote: >In article <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> > Chuanga@cris.com "H Andrew Chuang" writes: > >>I'm surprised that no one has posted anything about the two orders in >>these two newsgourps. > >Humour mode on please: >Maybe thats because the news only emerged on the wires yesterday, >these are moderated groups and unlike you who has self-approval >rights we, the Great Unwashed, have to wait until a moderator is >available to approve our posts. And since the moderator might probably >have heard the same news and post it him/herself: why should [I] >bother spending that 5 mins. typing out something that will >be rejected as redundant? Actually, Helen approved a batch last Friday, and someone did post AC's press release. However, my news server has been a bit unreliable lately. When I posted the previous message last Saturday, I had not seen the AC post, hence, I made the comment. Anyway, I try not to abuse my privilege too much. ;-) Since these newsgroups usually have good coverage on American and European carriers, I tend not to post breaking news about them (so other people have a chance to do so ;-) ). When it comes to airline-related breaking news, I try to limit myself to news about Asia-Pacific airlines, such as the AN/NZ/SQ alliance, etc. > >I'll skip the details. Basically, AC is going >>to order 3 A330-200s and 5 A340-300s to replace 6 B747 Classics and 2 > ^^^ >The AC news release mentioned only A330-300s. >No mention on engines... one would guess Pratts, eh? > Yes, it's the -300. Many have corrected my mistake. Thanks! From news Wed Aug 6 14:06:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics.simulation,sci.agriculture,sci.agriculture.beekeeping,sci.agriculture.fruit,sci.agriculture.poultry,sci.agriculture.ratites,sci.answers,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.aquaria,sci.archaeology,sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.archaeology.moderated,sci.astro,sci.astro.amateur,sci.astro.fits,sci.astro.hubble,sci.astro.planetarium,sci.astro.research Path: ditka!news2.mv.net!mv!news.missouri.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!alnews.ncsc.mil!uunet!in1.uu.net!166.84.0.219!panix!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: Lipo Wang Subject: PAKDD-98: Second Call for Papers Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: School of Computing & Math, Deakin University Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:46:01 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ====================================================================== C A L L F O R P A P E R S ====================================================================== The Second Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (PAKDD-98) ---------------------------------------------- Melbourne Convention Centre, Melbourne, Australia ================================================= 15-17 April 1998 Home Page: http://www.sd.monash.edu.au/pakdd-98 Invited Speakers: Jiawei Han (ACSys Keynote Speaker, Simon Fraser University) Chris Wallace (Monash University) The Second Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (PAKDD-98) will provide an international forum for the sharing of original research results and practical development experiences among researchers and application developers from different KDD related areas such as machine learning, databases, statistics, knowledge acquisition, data visualization, software re-engineering, and knowledge-based systems. It will follow the success of PAKDD-97 held in Singapore in 1997 by bringing together participants from universities, industry and government. Papers on all aspects of knowledge discovery and data mining are welcome. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to: - Data and Dimensionality Reduction - Data Mining Algorithms and Tools - Data Mining and Data Warehousing - Data Mining on the Internet - Data Mining Metrics - Data Preprocessing and Postprocessing - Data and Knowledge Visualization - Deduction and Induction in KDD - Discretisation of Continuous Data - Distributed Data Mining - KDD Framework and Process - Knowledge Representation and Acquisition in KDD - Knowledge Reuse and Role of Domain Knowledge - Knowledge Acquisition in Software Re-Engineering and Software Information Systems - Induction of Rules and Decision Trees - Management Issues in KDD - Machine Learning, Statistical and Visualization Aspects of KDD (including Neural Networks, Rough Set Theory and Inductive Logic Programming) - Mining in-the-large vs Mining in-the-small - Noise Handling - Security and Privacy Issues in KDD - Successful/Innovative KDD Applications in Science, Government, Business and Industry. Both research and applications papers are solicited. All submitted papers will be reviewed on the basis of technical quality, relevance to KDD, significance, and clarity. Accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings by Springer-Verlag (in the Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence series). A selected number of the accepted papers will be expanded and revised for inclusion in a special issue of an international journal. All submissions should be limited to a maximum of 5,000 words. Four hardcopies should be forwarded to the following address. Professor Ramamohanarao Kotagiri (PAKDD '98) Department of Computer Science The University of Melbourne Parkville, VIC 3052 Australia Please include a cover page containing the title, authors (names, postal and email addresses), a 200-word abstract and up to 5 keywords. This cover page must accompany the paper. *************** I m p o r t a n t D a t e s *************** * 4 copies of full papers received by: October 16, 1997 * * acceptance notices: December 22, 1997 * * final camera-readies due by: January 30, 1998 * ************************************************************* Conference Chairs: ================== Ross Quinlan Sydney University Bala Srinivasan Monash University Program Chairs: =============== Xindong Wu Monash University Ramamohanarao Kotagiri Melbourne University Organising Committee Co-Chairs: =============================== Kevin Korb Monash University Graham Williams CSIRO, Australia PAKDD-98 Publicity Chair: ========================= Lipo Wang Deakin University PAKDD-98 Tutorial Chair: ======================== Jon Oliver Monash University PAKDD-98 Treasurer: =================== Michelle Riseley Monash University Program Committee: ================== Grigoris Antoniou James Boyce Ivan Bratko Mike Cameron-Jones Arbee Chen David Cheung Vic Ciesielski Honghua Dai John Debenham Olivier de Vel Tharam Dillon Guozhu Dong Peter Eklund Usama Fayyad Matjaz Gams Yike Guo David Hand Evan Harris David Heckerman David Kemp Masaru Kitsuregawa Kevin Korb Hingyan Lee Jae-Kyu Lee Deyi Li T.Y. Lin Bing Liu Huan Liu Zhi-Qiang Liu Hongjun Lu Dickson Lukose Kia Makki Heikki Mannila Peter Milne Shinichi Morishita Hiroshi Motoda Hwee-Leng Ong Jon Oliver Maria Orlowska G.Piatetsky-Shapiro Niki Pissinou Peter Ross Claude Sammut S. Seshadri Hayri Sever Arun Sharma Heinz Schmidt Evangelos Simoudis Atsuhiro Takasu Takao Terano B. Thuraisingham Kai Ming Ting David Urpani R. Uthurusamy Lipo Wang Geoff Webb Graham Williams Beat Wuthrich Xin Yao John Zeleznikow Diancheng Zhang Ming Zhao Zijian Zheng Ning Zhong Justin Zobel Further Information =================== Dr Xindong Wu Department of Software Development Monash University 900 Dandenong Road Caulfield East, Melbourne 3145 Australia Phone: +61 3 9903 1025 Fax: +61 3 9903 1077 Email: Xindong.Wu@fcit.monash.edu.au From news Thu Aug 7 15:25:05 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Air Canada and Virgin order Airbus planes Date: 07 Aug 1997 15:10:43 -0400 Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5sd6js$gd0$16@kragar.kei.com> References: <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> I'm still curious whether both the A340-500 and A340-600 will ever come aloft. Several problems still need to be resolved: - structural problems regarding the overly elongated fuselage (strength, tail-wag, weight). - structural problems regarding the WBI wing (aeroelasticity, reduced thickness/chord ratio, heavier engines) with a completely altered dynamic response, related certification issues. - the problem of a severely limited takeoff rotation calling for a high lift coefficient at low alpha is aggravated by excessive wing loading (unless wing area is considerably above the 437sqm I read somewhere). This may be resolved by complex high-lift devices, at a price. - a specified initial cruise altitude of FL350, compared to a mere FL270 at ISA +10C at MTOW for the -200 (according to AOM) - availability of a suitable powerplant, where cost and time are driving factors Would be a different story though if AI quietly decided to develop a COMPLETELY new, large wing also suitable for a REAL 747-successor (P400, P450) while circulating the WBI to lead us up the garden path... B. Domke From news Fri Aug 8 22:14:54 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam Date: 08 Aug 1997 18:50:31 -0400 Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5sg7rv$1sd$16@kragar.kei.com> References: <5sd6ah$gd0$11@kragar.kei.com> In article <5sd6ah$gd0$11@kragar.kei.com>, 71302.3415@compuserve.com (Ernie Alston) wrote: > At about 200 Ft a small alarm goes off letting the pilots know they > are at decision height (DH). If they don't have the runway right in front > of them, and are not comfortable with their approach by then, again its > an automatic go around for another try. That's not part of standard ILS receiving equipment (unless you mean the middle marker). Many airplanes (almost all commercial transports) have altitude alerters than sound an audible warning when the plane approaches a pilot-set altitude. Also, a "standard" part of an ILS (but not present on every ILS) are the marker beacons. The outer marker is about 5 to 6 miles from the runway and is approximately at the altitude the plane will intercept the glideslope. The middle marker is approximately at the point where the glide slope is 200 feet above the runway, and the inner marker, at the few places that have them, is at roughly 100 feet. These are all radios that will cause a light to flash on the panel and, if you have it selected, be heard over the radio speakers or headphones. > I'd be interested to know from the CVR if that went off. Note that markers are fixed on land and are not tied to the airplane's altitude. From what I've heard, the plane was a few miles from the airport so if it's the middle marker you're referring to, they would not have heard it as they were not there. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Schaumburg, IL, USA From news Mon Aug 11 15:05:16 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news.dra.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: chrisw@kjsl.com (Chris Wilcox) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam Date: 11 Aug 1997 16:01:42 -0400 Organization: Department of Encryption, Division of Obfuscation Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5snr3f$cp4$8@kragar.kei.com> References: Phil Wood wrote: >A localizer approach provides just directional information lined up >directly to the runway. Alltitude step-downs occur at either fixed time >or distance increments until you reach a minimum descent hight. If you >see the runway, land - If not, go around. Under no circumstances can >you go below the minimum. Obviously, KAL801 violated that rule. I suspect this guy didn't go below mins--at least not knowingly. There's just no reason. I suspect they didn't reset the altimeter. The radar altimeter may have squawked once or twice, if they even set it (who knows), but I know for sure that the "PULL UP! TERRAIN!" announcements would have been soundly ignored on "short" final as they are part of every landing. And to think of the "peace of mind" that GPWS gives the flying public..... >The tough ones (in my opinion) are NDBs - That's what was in use at >Dubrovnik when Sec. Brown went down. No argument there. Chris Wilcox chirsw@kjsl.com ATP-MEL From news Mon Aug 11 15:05:16 1997 Path: ditka!daver!newsgate.tandem.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: dan@?dmc.gt.ed.net (Hotblack Desiato) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam Date: 11 Aug 1997 16:15:14 -0400 Organization: dmc.gt.ed.net Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5snrsr$cp4$13@kragar.kei.com> References: On 08 Aug 97 05:41:22 , k_ish professed: >jf mezei wrote: >> Is it plausible that the missing glide slope would have resulted in the >> plane being much lower than it should have been in its approach ? > >The glide slope had been out of service for a month, and hundreds of >aircraft landed uneventfully. In some footage, you can see a flat, >circular dirt area with a white antenna in the center. This is the >middle marker beacon! No, that's a TACAN beacon. __ "If life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion." ANTI-SPAM! Remove the ? fom dan@?dmc.gt.ed.net to send me mail From news Tue Aug 12 00:14:32 1997 Path: ditka!news2.mv.net!mv!news.missouri.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!fozzie.mercury.net!newsfeed.dreamscape.com!news.emi.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!infeed2.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: m@bang.org Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Fracturing the Pacific Date: 11 Aug 1997 15:50:28 -0400 Organization: a2i network Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> caribb wrote: > It seems the same tendancy to have more direct flights between > North America and Asia is occuring as it has happened between > North America and Europe. Any comments? It does seem we are seeing the beginning of a fracturing of the Pacific market i.e. nonstop flights between an increasing number of city pairs, avoiding hubs like NRT and SFO. The aircraft which fractured the Atlantic market was the B767, which offerred range, the comfort of a widebody, and few enough seats to operate in markets that could not support a large plane. The B767 did not fracture the Pacific, which is dominated by the B747-400. Part of the reason is that the B767 is slower than a B747. While this makes for US-Europe flight times 15-30 minutes longer, it make for trans-Pacific flight times of nearly an hour longer. Airlines offering a one hour shorter flight have a great advantage of over their slower competitors. Another possible reason is that the B767 doesn't have sufficient range to fly many of the interesting trans-Pacific city pairs. But since the B767 is not used on even those trans-Pacific routes for which it does have range (with the exception of SEL-SEA), I reject this reason. From the US east coast to Asia requires a three or four engined plane because there are no suitable places for an ETOPS aircraft to land in the Arctic. But there are still many routes from SFO and LAX to Asia which are not now operated, either because the A340 and B747 are too big, or because these aircraft don't have enough range. Examples of the former include SHA and CAN. Examples of the latter include BKK and SIN. So what is needed to fracture the Pacific market is several new aircraft: 1) A four engine aircraft with enough range to operate JFK-HKG, JFK-SIN, etc. The A340-500 and B747-400IGW will be capable of operating JFK-HKG, but probably not JFK-SIN. 2) An aircraft with the range to serve BKK, SIN, MEL, etc. from SFO and LAX. The B777-200X and, possibily, the A340-500 B747-400IGW will fill this role. 3) A smaller aircraft with enough speed and range to serve smaller US and Canadian cities from Asian hubs and from smaller Asian cities to US hubs. To serve the northeastern US and Canada would require a four-engine plane, and I don't expect to see any small four engine planes developed any time soon. DEN, DFW and other cities could have trans-Pacific service with a twin, if such had the range and speed. Present 767s have neither. The 777-200IGW and 777-200X have the range and speed, but are to large to serve routes with less traffic than, say, DEN-NRT, DEN-HKG, DFW-NRT. SLC-SEL, for example, needs a smaller plane. There are many other possible routes for a small, fast, long-range widebody. Is there any possibility for such a plane? A rewinged B767 could do the job. There are two problems though. One is that developing a new wing for the B767 would cost about $2billion. The other is that the engines used on B767s don't have a lot of room for growth. This would limit the MGTOW, perhaps unacceptably. A rewinged A330 might also do the job, though it would be larger, too large for some routes. The A330's engines have more room for growth, but the cost of developing a new wing is still severe (and for a possibly smaller market than a smaller rewinged B767 could garner). In sum, it is clear that the A340-500, B747-400IGW, and B777-200X, if launched, will fracture the Pacific market to some significant degree. Indeed, China Southern's new 777-200IGW LAX-CAN service is a beginning. I expect that Airbus and Boeing will wait and see to what extent these planes fracture the market before committing to the development of smaller planes to finish the job. M Carling -- Microsoft Network is prohibited from reproducing this work, in whole or in part. Copyright 1997, M Carling. License is available to Microsoft Network to reproduce this work for $1000. Unauthorized reproduction by Microsoft Network constitutes agreement to these terms. Please report violations to m@bang.org and postmaster@microsoft.com. From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:13 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: MD-95 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , sleetz@aol.com (SLeeTz) wrote: > Anyone hear about when this airplan will be coming out? I'm editing a video now about the company-wide tour Phil Condit and Harry Stonecipher took following the first day of operations for the new Boeing on August 4. Some of the video includes footage of the Long Beach commercial airplane facility. There are shots of an MD-95 in final assembly, and while it is a flight test airplane, I don't believe it's MD-95 No. 1. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:14 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Q:747-400F vs. 747-200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Karl Swartz wrote: > With the 777-200(IGW), the only difference between various MGTOW > optiosn is paperwork and dollars. Don't forget the engines (dollars) which change with the MTOW. B777A Trent 875/877, PW4074/4077 and GE90-75/77B. B777B Trent 884/890, PW4084/4090 and GE90-85/90B. The additional thrust is needed to get the additional fuel to takeoff speed, or if you keep the smaller engines on a higher MTOW you have a longer takeoff distance. I was told that the engines can be upgraded by reprogramming the FADEC. According to the same source the higher TOW is achieved by reprogramming the FMS. ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:14 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Air Canada and Virgin order Airbus planes References: <5rv7lt$r2e@chronicle.concentric.net> <5s7uh5$4s4$16@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Niels Sampath wrote: > It will be interesting to see if AC ever (well...in the > next 10 years, say) sees the need to a) have something between > the 767-300 and A330-300 and/or b) replace the 767-200s/300s. > Since there is no obvious 767-200 replacement and the 330-200 > barely if at all competing with the 767-300, I suspect it would > make more sense for AC to one day think of 767-400s rather than > get A330-200s. Interseting question, but not only concerning AC but in general. The A330/340 family covers the 3 class seating from 253 (A330-200) to 378 (A340-600). The B767 family covers the 3 class seating from 175 (B767-200) to 245 (B767-400). AC has placed A330/340 orders in two phases, first for the A340-300 it is now operating and finally the A330/340 order discussed in this thread which itself is split in three subphases. If there will be a logic in future AC orders they will choose the A330-200 (for growth) when replacement of the B767-300 will become necessary. Common characteristics with existing (A330/340) aircraft will be an important criteria. The same could be said for the B767 of AC but those a/c are older than the A330/340. The question which remains open is what happens in the B767-200 segment. The -200 sales represents 30% (229 units) of the 767 total. This is not negligible, however the -200 is (like the A310) virtually dead. The backlog for both a/c is 1 (-200) and 9 (A310). One year ago I read that AI is thinking of a successor for the A300/310 family. I don't have more details but I remember it was an interview with a high-level DASA official. I don't think that the market is big enough to justify a revamped B767-200 or A310, but can Boeing and Airbus afford to abandon this sector ? I would say no. ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:14 From: caribb Subject: Dangerous Aircraft lighting Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an interesting article concerning the aircraft visability while taxing on airport tarmacs. In effect it talked about how airplanes have not got a standardised lighting system to clearly identify what type of plane they are and what they are doing. Control towers operators have trouble actually physically spotting planes on the ground at night and airlines are making it even harder by turining off their "logo lights" on their tails in order to save money. Futhermore smaller planes have even less lighting than the larger ones. All this contributes to possible danger when trying to coordinate where they are going and who sees each other. Anyone from North America or Europe have any insight on this? The article can be read here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/chronicle/article.cgi?file=MN60706.DTL&directory=/chronicle/archive/1997/08/09 From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:15 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: DC9-15 (was Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com k_ish wrote: > > In the MD-8X, and MD-9X, the number seems to correspond to the year of > introduction. Anyone know for sure?? Don't know for sure but this fits. Should be more than a coincidence. > And if the MD series survives the > Boeing buyout, will they have a "year 2000" problem? :-) You start with a big *IF* : If the MD series survives the Boeing buyout. Personally I believe that only the ordered planes will be built, then at least the MD90 series will be buried. The future of the MD95 series seems very dark to me. With only VJ and perhaps Debonair these days (for 15 a/c), the backlog will be zero by the end of 99. The MD11 series should survive for some years as cargo a/c. So if the answer to the big *IF* is yes, they can call any new or upgraded variant : MD 00 MD 100 or simply Boeing 787 Just my $.02 ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:15 From: Antoin Daltun Subject: Re: differing MGTOW for same model aircraft operated by different airlines? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:57 17/08/97, you wrote: >In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >[ a variety of statistics regarding different MGTOWs for different >carriers' delivered B757s] > >What differs between the aircraft ordered by the different carriers that >affects the MGTOW, i.e. why do they not all have the same MGTOW for the >same variant of the same model aircraft? Is it just a reflection of the >different cabin appointments, or are there other >structural/mechanical/fuel tank/something else differences? Some possible reasons for MTOGW variations: Airport charges and air navigation charges are based on the filed MTOGW of aircraft, so if an airline does not need the full weight available from the type for its own operations, it may file reduced weights. Sometimes, a manufacturer will give a price concession for an airline which takes a reduced weight (on the basis that if the airline needs the higher weight later it will pay for it), but only if it feels that it will not otherwise sell the aircraft. If an airline has a special need, it may be able to secure a slightly higher MTOGW at the expense of some other limitation. As time goes on, there is a tendency for the available MTOGW on new production aircraft to increase, as more potential customers have more difficult requirements, or as increased engine thrust becomes available. This may or may not apply to units already in service and may or may not involve a change in the designation. Regards Antoin Daltun From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:15 From: gerwocii@aol.com (GERWOCII) Subject: Re: De-icing airplane wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >> Could someone tell me who is responsible for the de-icing of wings? >> Does each individual airline have it's own crew for that? I'm looking >> for either the names of some of the manufacturers of the trucks or the >> companies which supply the service. Every airline has its own procedures and rules. Although you wont see too much of a difference in those procedures. The PIC has the final authority as to the decision to shoot the aircraft. The ground crew is responsable for the actual spraying of the aircraft. In some citys and airlines it is the mechanics that deice, some places it is the baggage handlers that are responsable. This is all dependant on the airline and the size of the station. Every year everyone is trained. As a matter of fact it's almost that time. Some of the more common deicers are TRUMP and SIMON. Couldnt tell you who make them though. Uh Oh Here comes a flock of WHAAA WHAAA's!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Joe Walsh From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:15 From: kieron@reiwa.com.au (Kieron Murphy) Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia k_ish wrote: >Neil Wagner wrote: >> You never asked the right people. ;) >> Some DC-8's have the ability to deploy their inboard thrust reversers >> in flight, acting as speed brakes. I don't think they were ever >> intended for use just prior to landing. >There was a bad Air Canada crash in the 60s or 70s caused by inadvertent >thrust reverser deployment during a go-around. IIRC, there was >miscommunication in the cockpit. The captain said, "takeoff power" and >the FO interpreted this as "take off power". Perhaps another person in >this NG has more facts. I heard this one as well, but it was in a 707 simulator. From memory, it as mentioned in a paperback book called Airport International, I've got it around here somewhere. Kieron From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:16 From: gerwocii@aol.com (GERWOCII) Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust in Air (was Trident/More Weirdness)) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I belive the DC-8 is able to fly it's approach using reverse thrust. As a matter of fact ive seen a picture of it. Uh Oh Here comes a flock of WHAAA WHAAA's!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Joe Walsh From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:16 From: mba340@club-internet.fr Subject: Re: Aileron control on Airbus References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr Ian McAndrew wrote: >In article , Pete Mellor writes >>Does Ian recall which Airbus he was on? > >I looked at my holiday receipts - all it says is A300. If it is any >help, it was Monarch Airline and a wide body - I think 9 abreast >seating. The flight was Manchester to Turin. Monarch operates only A300-600R as wide body. There are 4 airplanes in a single class, 361 seat configuration. MON owned 4 767 300er leased to AZA (Alitalia) configurated as C30 Y207. I think it was A300 600R. From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:16 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Pete wrote: >In article , Celestar 9V-SJH writes >>SIA does not have any B747-100/200s for replacement by the A340-600. And >>they are already operating 37 B747-400s, with almost 8 more on firm order >>and 10 on options (the largest fleet of 747-400 in the world). > >I make it that British Airways currently has 38 747-400s in service and >a further 21 on order which calls into question the statement above? "Celestar's" information was based on an SIA press release issued when SIA received its 32nd passenger B747-400. At the time, BA had 31 B747-400s. SIA may still claim having the largest B747-400 fleet in operation, because it currently has six B747-400Fs in operation. From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:16 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >Celestar 9V-SJH wrote: >> I doubt Singapore Airlines will go for either A340-600 or the B777-200X. >> They have mentioned that the B777-200X is too big for their long-haul >> routes and are unhappy that Boeing is not offering the B777-100X. > >The situation of Singapore Airlines is special. They have still 41 >options for the B777. I don't know of any options for the A340. SIA had options on 20 A340s. However, I believe some have expired. >The 41 >options were signed with the B777-100X in mind. If the B777-200X is not >corresponding to their needs what are they going to do with all these >options? That's not true. The 41 options, of which ten are for its leasing operation, can be switched to any models. Even some of the current order of 29 can be switched to other models including the -300. >A part may be converted to -200IGW's (for traffic growth), the other >ones may never be converted to a firm order. Canceling the options may >not be very cheap. Again, not correct. SIA did not order any -200A because SIA thought the resale value of the -200A would be significantly less than the -200IGW. >The A340-500 is rangewise (8300nm) not as performant as the -200X >(~8500nm) and seats 10 more passengers. The dead born A340-8000 with >8000nm and 240 passengers could be a compromise, but it looks like the >plane Singapore Airlines is asking for is not going to be launched that >soon ... Well, both Boeing and Airbus are working with SIA to launch either a heavier B777-200X (than the originally proposed one) or a high-gross-weight A340-500. SIA will need some ultra-long-range planes to take advantage of the new open-skies bilateral signed between the US and Singapore. I'm reasonably certain that SIA will order one of them in a not too distant future. From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:17 From: mba340@club-internet.fr Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr >According to AW&ST the target for industrial launch is 25 orders. It >seems clear to me that the two LOI are not sufficient to launch the >programs. Again according to the Seattle Times, " The commitments by the >two airlines also brought Airbus several steps closer to a formal launch >of its planned new version of its widebody A340 aircraft." A319 was launched without any launch customer and orders. >guess is that Airbus will have more than 40 orders for the -500/-600 by >the end of the year. Other customers should be Lufthansa, Swissair, >Sabena, Cathay Pacific, Air France. I'm not sure if Singapore Airlines >will choose the A340-600 or the B777-200X. SIA want an aircraft to SIN-USA without stop. Those two types do not corespond to this expectative considering the real performance of the aircraft and not the performances announced by the airframers. From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:17 From: Celestar 9V-SJH Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 05:41 AM 8/8/97, you wrote: >>SIA does not have any B747-100/200s for replacement by the A340-600. And >>they are already operating 37 B747-400s, with almost 8 more on firm order >>and 10 on options (the largest fleet of 747-400 in the world). > >I make it that British Airways currently has 38 747-400s in service and >a further 21 on order which calls into question the statement above? The 37 B747-412s are all-passenger versions. Singapore Airlines is also operating 6 B747-412Fs, with 2 more on firm order. Celestar 9V-SJH From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:17 From: "Ken O'Riordan" Subject: Re: Aer Lingus signs for A321s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Union Bank of Switzerland Niels Sampath wrote: > > Aer Lingus has signed for 4x A321s. > 2 in 1998 and 2 in 1999. > To operate the Dublin-LHR service. > Like the British Midland A320/321 deal this is somewhat surprising > since both are strong 737 operators. > This may have been the deal Boeing was once looking for to develop > the 737-900 (along with a Chinese airline). > Haven't heard about the -900 recently tho. This doesn't surprise me too much as Aer Lingus have been absolutely delighted with their A330's. I wonder though how much EU influence was brought to bear? Regards, Ken. From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:17 From: k_ish Subject: Re: O'Hare Accident References: <01bca1d1$c7c8e580$b1689cce@john> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Larry Stone wrote: [snip] > Recovering from normal > stalls is part of basic flight training and I dare say every airplane > pilot has done plenty of stall recoveries in the simulator. Totally true. > As long as you > keep the wings level, you can "fly" a plane all day in a stall with very > little risk. Stalling both wings has nothing to do with wings level; in fact it is easier to stall in a bank. It is called an accelerated stall. Just put the aircraft into a steep bank (say, 60 degrees) and pull back on the yoke to tighten up the turn. Both wings will stall. An aircraft with both wings stalled is *not* flying, at least no more than a Steinway or a rock! A stall is very little risk...until terra firma interferes with your stall recovery plans. Recovery from any type of stall at the altitude the ORD incident occurred at would be challenging in a Cessna 150, not to mention a DC-10. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:18 From: King David Subject: Re: O'Hare Accident References: <01bca1d1$c7c8e580$b1689cce@john> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lockheed Martin EIS Don Stokes wrote: > I believe the engine-out procedure was changed following this accident to > use a higher speed (but lower rate of climb) to allow for possible slat > damage. Makes sense Don. After reading the timeline report in AV-Week from the flight recorder, the pilot kept slowing the plane down to the prescribed velocity, yet he kept cross-controling the aircraft more and more as the airspeed declined, until the plane entered a spin. From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:18 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com m@bang.org wrote: > The B767 did not fracture the Pacific, which is dominated by the B747-400. > Part of the reason is that the B767 is slower than a B747. While this > makes for US-Europe flight times 15-30 minutes longer, it make for > trans-Pacific flight times of nearly an hour longer. Airlines offering a > one hour shorter flight have a great advantage of over their slower > competitors. True for the East Coast and Midwest, but not the West Coast. 767's are flown LAX-LHR but not LAX-NRT. The distance is roughly the same. Another possible reason is that the B767 doesn't have > sufficient range to fly many of the interesting trans-Pacific city > pairs. But since the B767 is not used on even those trans-Pacific routes > for which it does have range (with the exception of SEL-SEA), I reject > this reason. From the US east coast to Asia requires a three or four > engined plane because there are no suitable places for an ETOPS aircraft > to land in the Arctic. ETOPS could be the reason for LAX-LHR but not LAX-NRT. The former route is about 75% over land (although I still wouldn't want to go down over a lot of it!). The latter is mostly over water. > But there are still many routes from SFO and LAX to Asia which are not now > operated, either because the A340 and B747 are too big, or because these > aircraft don't have enough range. Examples of the former include SHA and > CAN. Examples of the latter include BKK and SIN. > There are many other possible routes for a small, fast, long-range > widebody. Is there any possibility for such a plane? QF and NZ fly quite a few 767's into LAX. I believe most stop in HNL. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:18 From: m@bang.org Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: a2i network Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > In article <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com>, wrote: > >From the US east coast to Asia requires a three or four > >engined plane because there are no suitable places for an ETOPS aircraft > >to land in the Arctic. > > The B777-200IGW and the proposed -200X will have the range to do it. To fly from the US east coast to Asia, having the range to fly the great circle route will not suffice for twins because these routes are non ETOPS legal--there are no satisfactory landing sites within 180 minutes of a very large area over the Arctic. A B777 would have to take a route significantly longer than the great circle route to remain within 180 minutes of a satisfactory landing site. M Carling -- Microsoft Network is prohibited from reproducing this work, in whole or in part. Copyright 1997, M Carling. License is available to Microsoft Network to reproduce this work for $1000. Unauthorized reproduction by Microsoft Network constitutes agreement to these terms. Please report violations to m@bang.org and postmaster@microsoft.com. From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:18 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California In article , M Carling wrote:>Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: >> In article <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com>, wrote: >> >From the US east coast to Asia requires a three or four >> >engined plane because there are no suitable places for an ETOPS aircraft >> >to land in the Arctic. >> The B777-200IGW and the proposed -200X will have the range to do it. >To fly from the US east coast to Asia, having the range to fly the great >circle route will not suffice for twins because these routes are non ETOPS >legal--there are no satisfactory landing sites within 180 minutes of a very >large area over the Arctic. You've said that before, and I've never really strongly questioned it. I finally took some time to look at the matter carefully. Since you focused on the Arctic, I picked three fairly northerly routes to examine -- ORD-NRT, ORD-HKG, and JFK-NRT. Using enroute alternates of Fairbanks, Alaska (FAI), Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia (UHPP), and finally Tokyo (NRT), all three routes are easily within the boundaries of 180 minutes ETOPS at 757 engine-out speeds. I suspect the 777 has a faster engine-out speed and thus a larger safety margin. See http://www.chicago.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=ORD-NRT,ORD-HKG,JFK-NRT&RANGE=180min@(FAI,UHPP,NRT). Why UHPP? United's Pacific/Far East Flight Supplement dated June 19, 1992 lists it as an emergency airport for both 747 and DC-10, so it can handle large aircraft if necessary. Alaska Airlines currently offers scheduled service there, so it's obviously available for commercial flights. If UHPP is unavailable, Cold Bay, Alaska (CDB) and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia (UHSS) can substitute on the ORD/JFK-NRT flights. Like UHPP, UHSS is in UA's Flight Supplement and receives schedule service from Alaska Airlines. Cold Bay is listed by UA as an alternate with little or no ground support. It receives scheduled commuter service, but has a 10,420' runway and thus could handle just about anything in a pinch. Magadan, Russia (UHMM) is another possibility. It's even better positioned for ORD-HKG than UHPP, and does receive regular service via Alaska Airlines. It's not on the (old) UA Flight Supplement I have, though, so I'm not sure if it can handle anything larger than the MD-80s Alaska flies there. Without considering strong winds in the far north, it looks to me as if ORD-NRT, ORD-HKG, and JFK-NRT, flown with great circle routes, are all doable with 180 minutes ETOPS with at least as many alternates as are available when flying the North Atlantic under 120 minute rules. Deeper routes pose a greater challenge. Barrow, Alaska (BRW) is well- positioned, but the longest runway is only 6,500' long. Weather is likely a problem, though the presence of ILS helps. Assuming BRW is a suitable alternate, JFK-HKG is well within 180 minute rules using FAI, BRW, UHMM, and SEL as alternates. Dropping BRW requires a more significant diversion, but might not be untenable. Only when you start looking at routes from the Eastern US deep into Asia, such as JFK-SIN, does it start looking like twins are not viable due to ETOPS restrictions. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:18 From: jimcam@arctic.ca Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NTnet News Server On 1997-08-11 m@bang.org said: m@>Airlines offering a one hour shorter flight have a great advantage m@>of over their slower competitors. Another possible reason is that m@>the B767 doesn't have sufficient range to fly many of the m@>interesting trans-Pacific city pairs. But since the B767 is not m@>used on even those trans-Pacific routes for which it does have m@>range (with the exception of SEL-SEA), I reject this reason. From m@>the US east coast to Asia requires a three or four engined plane m@>because there are no suitable places for an ETOPS aircraft to land m@>in the Arctic. According to my friends at Air Canada ( a B767 operator) you need 6000 feet of hard surface for an ETOPS alternate. The Arctic airports which meet this criteria are CYFB, CYRT, CYYQ, CYZF and CYEV. I understand that Condor uses CYRB which is 6400 Gravel. With 3 hours ETOPS you can take a 767 anywhere through the Arctic. Jim Cameron Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Canada Net-Tamer V 1.08.1 - Test Drive From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:19 From: John Donaldson Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DIALix Internet Services On 11 Aug 1997 m@bang.org wrote: > caribb wrote: > > It seems the same tendancy to have more direct flights between > > North America and Asia is occuring as it has happened between > > North America and Europe. Any comments? In Friday's Melbourne Age there was a report that the new owners of Melbournes just privatised and sold airport that they were dropping landing fees for 747 from AUD $4,000 to AUD $2,000 (with some conditions) The article went on to point out that the new owners of Melbourne Airport are "encouraging UA to fly non-stop 747-400 LAX Melbourne (currently going through AUK). Presumably Qantas and others would have to match the deal? Can a 747-400 fly that far (in both directions) with an economical payload? John Donaldson Melbourne, Australia From kls Mon Aug 18 02:22:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 18 Aug 97 02:22:19 From: kesha@mozart.inet.co.th (Research Department) Subject: Korean Air and Guam Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Thailand, Bangkok I flew in and out of Guam for a local airline there back in the 1980's three times a day. We flew the Guam - Rota - Tinian - Saipan route. However, all of our final flights were back into Guam at night. When the weather was clear it was a beautiful place to fly to. However, when a tropical storm was in the area or typical tropical showers it was a mess. Even then, the ILS glideslope hardly ever worked right. Many times it was strickly a VOR approach or ILS with the extra DH for a missing Glide Slope out of service. Maybe now the FAA I am sure have rushed all the extra equipment and personnel into Guam to install the right equipment for the glide Slope. I am sure that because Guam does not have the excessive traffic the FAA could not really justify sending the equipment before down there. It is a ashame that it took so many lives to get the damn thing fixed. Can you imagine the public outrage it the flight had been a US carrier that crashed and the FAA through a Congressional sub-committee were found that they negelected this problem for years. All of that money in the Aviation Trust Fund that was collected from US citizens on their airline tickets was sent to balance the national debt, not go into aviation airport and equipment improvements. Another example of the US government legislation one thing and then sending the money to another area. Jon From kls Tue Aug 19 04:14:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Aug 97 04:14:03 From: m@bang.org Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: a2i network kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > In article , M Carling wrote: > > >To fly from the US east coast to Asia, having the range to fly the great > >circle route will not suffice for twins because these routes are non ETOPS > >legal--there are no satisfactory landing sites within 180 minutes of a > >very large area over the Arctic. > > You've said that before, and I've never really strongly questioned > it. I finally took some time to look at the matter carefully. Since > you focused on the Arctic, I picked three fairly northerly routes to > examine -- ORD-NRT, ORD-HKG, and JFK-NRT. I wrote "US east coast". I don't believe I ever questioned the ETOPS capability of ORD-Asia routes. Anyway, none of the routes you chose above as examples could fracture the Pacific market because they already operate with B747s. JFK-HKG (which you cover below) is probably the single route which could most effectively fracture the market, as it has a lot of traffic which must currently make a stop (often at NRT). JFK-CAN, BOS-HKG, IAD-HKG are also routes which probably have enough traffic to make nonstop service commercially viable, and which would serve to fracture the market. Assuming all the alternates you list are available year-round (I'm particularly doubtful about UHMM and BRW), then all of these routes can be flown ETOPS. The critical one is BRW without which all these routes must be flown well away from the great circle route. See http://www.chicago.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=JFK-HKG,BOS-HKG,JFK-CAN,IAD-HKG&RANGE= 180min@(FAI,CDB,UHMM,UHSS,UHPP,NRT) I've never been to Barrow, but I have been north of Fairbanks, and I suspect that keeping the runway clear at Barrow would be quite an undertaking. > Without considering strong winds in the far north, it looks to me as > if ORD-NRT, ORD-HKG, and JFK-NRT, flown with great circle routes, are > all doable with 180 minutes ETOPS with at least as many alternates as > are available when flying the North Atlantic under 120 minute rules. Agreed, but these routes are not really relevant to the issue of the extent to which twins may fracture the Pacific market, as these are the routes we're interested in fracturing. > Deeper routes pose a greater challenge. Barrow, Alaska (BRW) is well- > positioned, but the longest runway is only 6,500' long. Weather is > likely a problem, though the presence of ILS helps. Assuming BRW is a > suitable alternate, JFK-HKG is well within 180 minute rules using FAI, > BRW, UHMM, and SEL as alternates. The greatest challenge at BRW is likely to be keeping the runway clear of snow. We can be confident that there will be a significant number of days each year when BRW will not be available due to weather. Will any airline schedule such a service if they don't have the range to divert around BRW on such days? If (as is likely) not then the route must be operated with equipment having the range to fly farther south on a longer course against typically greater headwinds (westbound). Also, in the unlikely event of a B777 or A330 diversion to BRW, the aircraft might have to depart empty due to the short runway. Then smaller aircraft would need to be brought in to collect the pax. I don't think BRW has hotel rooms for 300 stranded pax. There might be some old Army barracks available. Sleeping outside would be unadvisable. > Dropping BRW requires a more significant diversion, but might not > be untenable. Agreed. JFK-HKG without BRW as an alternate might or might not be untenable. My guess is that it would only be profitable using a low-density aircraft, and only putting full-fare pax on the nonstop. JFK-HKG could probably even support an aircraft configured with only First and Business classes. I believe a B777-200IGW so configured (about 30 BA-style sleeper cabins plus about 170 C seats with 50inch pitch) would have the range, even without BRW. Of course, so configuring an aircraft makes fleet planning a mess. A 24/84/114 configuration would probably have the range, and could be more easily integrated into a fleet. > Only when you start looking at routes from the Eastern US deep into > Asia, such as JFK-SIN, does it start looking like twins are not viable > due to ETOPS restrictions. JFK-SIN (like JFK-BKK) has a great circle route going round the other way, north of Scandanavia and Siberia. However, the route would probably be flown eastbound in each direction to take advantage of prevailing winds. To be ETOPS legal would require large deviations from the great circle routes, which might be advantageous if flown eastbound in both directions. Please note that this paragraph is highly speculative. M Carling -- Microsoft Network is prohibited from reproducing this work, in whole or in part. Copyright 1997, M Carling. License is available to Microsoft Network to reproduce this work for $1000. Unauthorized reproduction by Microsoft Network constitutes agreement to these terms. Please report violations to m@bang.org and postmaster@microsoft.com. From kls Tue Aug 19 04:14:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Aug 97 04:14:05 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Assuming all the alternates you list are available year-round (I'm >particularly doubtful about UHMM and BRW), then all of these routes can be >flown ETOPS. The critical one is BRW without which all these routes must be >flown well away from the great circle route. I agree that BRW is dicey. Let's try a different set, trying not to go too far out on a limb: FAI Fairbanks, Alaska, US CYRB Resolute Bay, Northwest Territories, Canada BGTL Thule Air Base, Greenland ENVA Trondheim, Norway LED St. Petersburg, Russia MMK Murmansk, Russia OVB/UNNN Novosibirsk, Russia GDX/UHMM Magadan, Russia Hopefully we can agree that Fairbanks is viable. Others have noted Resolute Bay as a viable alternate; it's nearly redundant with Thule, which UA lists as an emergency airport and which reportedly has more than adequate facilities. Trondheim is already used by UA as an ETOPS alternate. Moving into Russia, St. Petersburg, Murmansk, Novosibirsk, and Magadan all receive regular scheduled service. I assume, perhaps erroneously, that if it's reasonable to plan to fly to an airport, it's reasonable to use it as an alternate. St. Petersburg and Magadan both receive scheduled jet service by Western carriers throughout the year (e.g., FRA-LED on LH using 737-300, ANC-GDX on AS using MD-80). The only Western service I could find to Murmansk was Finnair (AY) flying HEL-MMK with an ATR-72, though Aeroflot takes a Tu-154 in there so it can handle a reasonably large aircraft. Novosibirsk is perhaps a long shot. I couldn't find any Western carriers going there, but Aeroflot has plenty of flights including at least one with an Ilyushin-86. If they can handle that turkey, any self-respecting Western twin should have no problem whatsoever. With these eight airports, nearly the entire area above the Arctic Circle is 180 minute ETOPS territory, with several options for all but a few small pieces. The only no go area is northeast of Novosibirsk. The JFK-SIN great circle route is just barely east of this area, and IAD-HKG is slightly west of it. JFK-HKG and BOS-HKG pass right through it, though, and obviously some other interesting routes would too. Either of the following airports would provide the needed alternate for this area: DKS Dikson, Russia IKS Tiksi, Russia Both are on the north coast of Russia and thus probably have pretty nasty weather. Aeroflot doesn't even fly there, which is another bad sign. On the other hand, they appear to be fairly strategic locations from a military standpoint and thus may have considerably better facilities than their small size and remote locations might otherwise suggest. Even if they're marginal, the Russian thirst for hard currency might be enough for them to make any necessary upgrades if it means a revenue stream from overflight fees. One other possibility is Yakutsk (YKS) which has a major new airport which is probably a suitable alternate. Unfortunately, it's not quite far enough north, so for a short time DKS and/or IKS or some other airport(s) near the Arctic Coast are needed, but reducing the time for which they are needed would improve the odds of cancellation due to probable unavailability of enroute alternates. While some Arctic ETOPS routes appear to be at best dicey until one or more Russian airports on the Arctic Coast are improved, assuming they aren't already adequate, it seems to me that many polar routes are quite doable under ETOPS rules. If faster cruise speeds imply faster engine-out speed (not necessarily true), then the 777 makes it even easier since I was using the 757's engine out speed. This may also give the 777 an edge over the A330. >Also, in the unlikely event of a B777 or A330 diversion to BRW, the aircraft >might have to depart empty due to the short runway. Then smaller aircraft >would need to be brought in to collect the pax. 777s flying SFO-LHR have occasionally departed on 1R, which is only 8,901 feet long. BRW-FAI is only 503 miles, so while the 6,500 foot runway isn't very generous, I don't think it would be that big of a problem given the modest range requirement. Obviously a longer runway would be preferable if available. >Agreed. JFK-HKG without BRW as an alternate might or might not be untenable. >My guess is that it would only be profitable using a low-density aircraft, >and only putting full-fare pax on the nonstop ... Flying JFK-HKG via N78 E164 keeps the flight within 180 minutes of either Fairbanks or Magadan (at 757 engine-out speeds, with none of the other alternates mentioned above required) yet adds only 8 miles (0.099%) to the direct distance. Trivial compared to the 0.8% increase in flight time (roughly proportional to distance) for a 757 flying London-New York with a 120 minute rule-time and using Shannon or Prestwick, then Keflavik, then Gander or Goose as alternates. >JFK-SIN (like JFK-BKK) has a great circle route going round the other way, >north of Scandanavia and Siberia. However, the route would probably be flown >eastbound in each direction to take advantage of prevailing winds. To be >ETOPS legal would require large deviations from the great circle routes, >which might be advantageous if flown eastbound in both directions. Please >note that this paragraph is highly speculative. JFK-SIN does not appear to need any deviation. Alternates are, in turn, Resolute Bay or Thule, then Murmansk, then Novosibiersk or Yakutsk. Between the minor east/west component in the routes and the high latitudes, I wonder how much wind benefit could be obtained. -- 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 Aug 19 04:14:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Aug 97 04:14:06 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: O'Hare Accident References: <01bca1d1$c7c8e580$b1689cce@john> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , kenish@ix.netcom.com wrote: >Larry Stone wrote: >> >> As long as you >> keep the wings level, you can "fly" a plane all day in a stall with very >> little risk. >An aircraft with both wings stalled is *not* flying, at least no more >than a Steinway or a rock! That's why I put "fly" in quotation marks. A plane like the Piper Warrior (which I owned for 7 years), given the right pitch, will drop in and out of a stall continuosly. The wings stall, the nose drops, the plane starts flying, the nose comes back up, the wings stall, repeat... >A stall is very little risk...until terra firma interferes with your >stall recovery plans. If only the media understood that. Oh well... At least I can dream. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Tue Aug 19 04:14:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Aug 97 04:14:06 From: rodh@suburbia.com.au (Rod Hibberd) Subject: Re: $%#% news media! (UA 737 engine failure in Portland, Or) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Suburbia Public Access Network Steven G. Thomson (sthomson@i1.net) wrote: -snips- : As for the media: I have usually found they frequently get it wrong with : things I know about, which leads me to the obvious conclusion. They must be : also getting it wrong with the things I don't know about! This is not a comment on this incident, but.. As a one-time $%#% of the media I can tell you that the spokesperson for the airline/airport/railroad/power plant, or whatever, quite often gives out the misinformation. And you'd wonder sometimes if the media spokesperson knows what a plane looks like. -RodH- From kls Tue Aug 19 04:14:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Aug 97 04:14:07 From: "matt weber" Subject: Re: Fed Ex MD-11 crash was mechanical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia nite rider wrote in article ... > Reliable "Purple" sources have indicated that the crash of Fed Ex 14, an > MD-11 landing at Newark, NJ, was due to mechanical failure of a wheel > assembly due to internal defects. After failing internally, the wheel > assembly caused a chain reaction of failures, first of the associated > strut, which in turn caused a loss of control of the aircraft. > > The crew flew a stabilized approach to landing with a sink rate of > approximately 460 fpm, with a landing impact of about 1.2 g. > > These findings apparently will absolve the crew of responsibility in the > crash. Current published reports in Aviation Week report that the decent rate was 500fpm, and the initial landing impact was 1.7G, the aircraft bounced, and the second impact was at 1.69G. Sounds to me like a very hard landing. The wheel assembly may well have failed, but this was a very hard landing. From kls Tue Aug 19 04:14:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Aug 97 04:14:07 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : Without considering strong winds in the far north, it looks to me as : if ORD-NRT, ORD-HKG, and JFK-NRT, flown with great circle routes, are : all doable with 180 minutes ETOPS with at least as many alternates as : are available when flying the North Atlantic under 120 minute rules. : Deeper routes pose a greater challenge. Barrow, Alaska (BRW) is well- : positioned, but the longest runway is only 6,500' long. Weather is ^^^^^^ Considering the benefits of twins, would investing in a bit of concrete not be advantagious by the airlines with large Asia-America traffic? (I had the same thoughts concerning some Atlantic diversion sites in Greenland earlier. To my knowledge no Greenland sites were expanded to allow acces to bigger planes like 767s) : likely a problem, though the presence of ILS helps. Assuming BRW is a : suitable alternate, JFK-HKG is well within 180 minute rules using FAI, : BRW, UHMM, and SEL as alternates. Dropping BRW requires a more : significant diversion, but might not be untenable. However, considering the precedent, the problem might be solved by a further extension of ETOPS rules. -- Filip De Vos I fart in the general direction of anthropic principles... :-) FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -- Michael L. Siemon -- From kls Tue Aug 19 04:14:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Aug 97 04:14:07 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Considering the benefits of twins, would investing in a bit of concrete >not be advantagious by the airlines with large Asia-America traffic? That or other upgrades such as ILS at an airport which already has a long runway but perhaps doesn't have very good weather. >(I had the same thoughts concerning some Atlantic diversion sites in >Greenland earlier. To my knowledge no Greenland sites were expanded to >allow acces to bigger planes like 767s) In all the ETOPS literature I've read (early feasibility studies, UA flight supplement, etc.), the only alternate in Greenland is Sondre Stromfjord, which apparently already had a decent-sized runway. Narssarssuaq is geographically desireable, but it has only a 6,000' runway, it's surrounded by mountains, and has no navaids other than an NDB. >However, considering the precedent, the problem might be solved by a >further extension of ETOPS rules. Possibly, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for such an action. I'd think it much more likely that one or more Russian airports on the Arctic Coast would be upgraded as needed, which would allow the entire Arctic region to be flown under the existing 180 minute rules. -- 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 Aug 19 04:14:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Aug 97 04:14:07 From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: differing MGTOW for same model aircraft operated by References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University, UK. On 18 Aug 97 02:22:15 , Antoin Daltun wrote: >Some possible reasons for MTOGW variations: > >Airport charges and air navigation charges are based on the filed MTOGW of >aircraft, so if an airline does not need the full weight available from the >type for its own operations, it may file reduced weights. Sometimes, a >manufacturer will give a price concession for an airline which takes a >reduced weight (on the basis that if the airline needs the higher weight >later it will pay for it), but only if it feels that it will not otherwise >sell the aircraft. This is quite often the reason. For example BA has some domestic 767-300ER's which do not require the payload range ability. There certificated MTOW is 158 tonnes versus 181 tonnes for other 767-300ER's in their fleet. This will reduce costs for landing and navigation fees which are rated against MTOW. Indeed, Airbus in a A3XX brochure has contested why airports charge on MTOW and not pax for landing/nav fees as this will adversly affect the cost for an A3XX type aircraft. From kls Tue Aug 19 04:14:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 19 Aug 97 04:14:07 From: ianfa@aol.com (IANFA) Subject: Re: Aer Lingus signs for A321s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk whilst a strong boeing operater aer lingus was short of seat capacity on dublin/lhr and airbus was able to offer earlier delivery positions than boeing.Aer lingus are reported to be very happy with their a330 experience. ian atkinson From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.ifr,eunet.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:33 From: Marcus Westermark Subject: Re: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland. John Hilt wrote: > On 01 Aug 97 04:04:20 , "William Caefer" wrote: > >Also, maybe because visual approaches take less time and effort. This > >saves the airline money. > > A relatively early descent gives the most fuel efficient approach for > jet airliners. ... > >Actually, if I lived as close to the only real source of the answer as you > >do (ie: Russian pilots) I'd try to stroll on over to the airport and ask a > >couple of them some questions about how they fly and procedures for their > >airlines. All pilots like to talk about flying after all. :) > > I've tried talking to them, but they're only interested in what they > can bring home for free. Like worn-out car tyres, food and live > chickens. :-) Being a newcomer to this group, must I strongly disapprove such underestimation's and stereotyping of Russian pilots and aviation! Having flown as a passenger in a lot of airliners, operated both by "western" and Russian pilots, is my confidence much higher in general in the Russian pilots. I'm sure various incidence has occurred both in west and east - but let us flip the coin: I can assure you all, that if we would populate present Russian airliners with American pilots, and especially those flying on routes to smaller destinations all around FSU (formal Soviet Union), would we have planes dropping at least 10 times as frequent they are! Most Russian pilots has a training and skills far more comprehensive than in any western country - and would underline flying skills. Among many of them, especially in the older generation, is a military pilot background almost a rule. Why do Russian airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? Unfortunately can I not answer that question! But Russian pilots do operate safely Russian airliners in conditions, where most western airliners and pilots wouldn't "survive" a single day. Living in a country - Finland - with highly respected pilots, would I still prefer having airline pilots to be chosen also on other criteria's than academic success. How many of these young "highly trained" pilots, would keep their head cool even in a likely to happen situation - a shutdown need of a turbine during take-off?? regards Marcus Ps. About language skills and worn out car tires - maybe you should find out the reality before making such statements From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.ifr,eunet.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:33 From: zinegreen@aol.com (ZineGreen) Subject: Re: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In response to the guy from Alaska who posted about Aeroflot pilots not speaking English: First, Aeroflot does not, nor have they ever, operated Boeing 747s. Secondly, regarding tire-tracks on the localizer antenna: the localizer antenna is located at the OPPOSITE end of the landing runway, thus a landing airplane does not overfly it. (Not to mention: how exactly do you leave tire-tracks on an antenna, regardless of where it is?) There is some merit to the language problem, but it is ridiculous to say they clear the taxiways when Aeroflot flights arrives. This is nonsense - I've been in the traffic mix many many times with Aeroflot flights into JFK and ORD. (I've even flown on Aeroflot.) The language problem has as much to do with ATC controllers with attitudes as much as it does foreign pilots who don't speak good English. They fly into our country, and we fly into theirs: let's be realistic about communicating. Controllers often rattle of instructions so fast even I can't understand them. What do they expect? Let's treat the foreign carriers with a little respect. From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.ifr,eunet.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:33 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >There is some merit to the language problem, but it is ridiculous to say >they clear the taxiways when Aeroflot flights arrives. This is nonsense - >I've been in the traffic mix many many times with Aeroflot flights into >JFK and ORD. A bit of an exageration, but not entirely untrue. I've heard from several pilots that they make a nice big hole in the airspace around SFO when Aeroflot flies in. Part of the problem apparently is that Aeroflot has a navigator, who handles all radio communications, thus keeping the pilots somewhat out of the loop, reducing situational awareness. On the other hand, I was once on a United flight from SFO, with ATC on the cabin audio system, listening to an Aeroflot Il-62 threading its way out to 28L (SFO's longest runway) when most traffic was departing on the usual 1L and 1R. There was perhaps a bit of confusion, both in communicating that they really did need 28L and also just finding their way about an unfamiliar traffic when they didn't have the luxury of following someone else. On the whole, though, it seemed like an entirely professional exchange and they seemed competent enough. That's more than I can say for a Garuda MD-11 a few miles ahead of my United SFO-LAX flight on another occasion. On approach, it was clear that the Garuda pilot and ATC were not communicating. ATC: "Garuda XXX, what's your minimum airspeed?" Garuda: "Garuda XXX, uh, clear for landing?" After a bit, the controller's frustration was apparent and finally he just gave up until the guy landed, keeping other traffic safely out of Garuda's way. (No, the Garuda pilot did not have a Russian accent!) -- 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 Aug 20 02:38:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:34 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re[2]: Fed Ex MD-11 crash was mechanical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Current published reports in Aviation Week report that the decent rate >was 500fpm, and the initial landing impact was 1.7G, the aircraft bounced, >and the second impact was at 1.69G. Sounds to me like a very hard landing. 500 fpm is a hard landing????????????? From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:34 From: stevec00@juno.com (Joel S Cole) Subject: Re[2]: Fed Ex MD-11 crash was mechanical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Nite Rider, I would like to respond to your email stating the MD11 experienced a wheel failure and ask a couple of questions. [1] Who are you? What is your source? Several rumors have surfaced about this incident, and most, like your email, has the wrong facts. The data quoted in your email does NOT agree with that in the latest Aviation Week. [2] When you say the crash was due to a failure of the "wheel assembly", do you mean Wheel Assy or Tire Assy? After inspecting the failed landing gear parts, I tend to believe your version; especially when #4 Tire had above average landing cycles on its carcass. However it must be pointed out that FedEx never experienced a Wheel failure on a DC10 or MD11. We've had Tire and also Bearing failures with little, if any, secondary effect. I recall the DC10 that lost the entire Nose wheel on takeoff from England and landed in MEM with no damage. [3] Even if there was a "Wheel failure", why would this result in a Gear collapse at an approach of 460 fpm and 1.2 g's? Either your numbers on the approach is incorrect (again, refer to AV Week) or you have underestimated the strength of the landing gear design. My guess is maybe a tire blew on the first touch down and there was no gear failure. (Think of it; why would the aircraft bounce if the gear broke?) The troubles occurred at the second touch-down: higher g, right roll. But then the right wing drop could only be attributed to pilot input. Coming down on only ONE strut, the one that has a flat tire, maybe could cause the strut to fail. STeve Cole~ STeveC00@juno.com From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:34 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , caribb wrote: >The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an interesting article >concerning the aircraft visability while taxing on airport tarmacs. In >effect it talked about how airplanes have not got a standardised >lighting system to clearly identify what type of plane they are and what >they are doing. Control towers operators have trouble actually >physically spotting planes on the ground at night and airlines are >making it even harder by turining off their "logo lights" on their tails >in order to save money. Futhermore smaller planes have even less >lighting than the larger ones. All this contributes to possible danger >when trying to coordinate where they are going and who sees each other. >Anyone from North America or Europe have any insight on this? By ICAO Annex 6, all airliners must have a certain number and kind of lighting installed and operating at night. These are your basic position lights, nav lights/strobes, and wingtip lights. Some airlines put additional lighting on their aircraft for other reasons, but not all. For example, the logo lights the article refers to are options on most aircraft, and some airlines do not have them installed - AA for example. Logo light operation, by the way, is often controlled by marketing preference rather than by regulation. Thus, while the Chronicle says there is not a standard for lighting, there is in fact a standard, and all airlines follow it. However, the standards for lighting may not be sufficient to specifically identify aircraft type and identity, as the article points out. I have no opinion on whether the airlines or other operators should be compelled by regulation to install additional lighting beyond the standard. I'm sure the ATC people know what they would like to see. 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 Wed Aug 20 02:38:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:34 From: no@junk.mail (Mike) Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Instruments In article , caribb@promobility.net says... > >The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an interesting article >concerning the aircraft visability while taxing on airport tarmacs. In >effect it talked about how airplanes have not got a standardised >lighting system to clearly identify what type of plane they are and what >they are doing. Control towers operators have trouble actually >physically spotting planes on the ground at night and airlines are >making it even harder by turining off their "logo lights" on their tails >in order to save money. Futhermore smaller planes have even less >lighting than the larger ones. All this contributes to possible danger >when trying to coordinate where they are going and who sees each other. >Anyone from North America or Europe have any insight on this? Interesting since in this news group maybe a year or so ago somebody made the comment that United planes are difficult to spot _during the day_. Apperently the blue/gray blends into the tarmac well. -- Because the junk mailers of the world think my address is their play thing, my e-mail address will not be revealed. Please respond publicly. ************Thank you junk mailers for ruining the internet************ From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:34 From: zinegreen@aol.com (ZineGreen) Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I've never heard of an airline asking its crews to shut of logo lights to save money. First of all, the money saved would be infinitesimal. But more importantly, crews are normally too safety conscious to stand for such a mandate had it come from the airline's management. I've been an airline pilot with 3 airlines in the US, and I've never encountered an airline asking its crews to skimp on any such matter that would affect safety of flight. From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:35 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom caribb wrote: > The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an interesting article > concerning the aircraft visability while taxing on airport tarmacs. In > effect it talked about how airplanes have not got a standardised > lighting system to clearly identify what type of plane they are and > what they are doing. [snip] IMHO, as a private pilot, this is journalistic sensationalism at its best (worst?)! A few points: -Although I don't have data, ground collisions are pretty rare. A Korean DC-10 / commuter at ANC, a TW(?) / private plane, the Tenerife accident, a ground near-miss NW DC-10 / NW 747 at MSP, and a TW / NW a few years ago in the Midwest were all in broad daylight. The USAir 737 / Wings West accident at LAX was at night, but in an area not visible from the control tower. Seems to me daylight ground collisions are more common. - Road vehicles don't have a lighting system to clearly identify what type of car they are. What would be the point? - Major airports have ground radar which aids ground ops especially at night and low-visibility. - Runways are marked with "hold bars", lighted signs, and alternating flashing lights to clearly identify hold points. You cannot proceed past a hold point unless instructed to do so. - When taxiing, be assured the pilots are not blindly following the ground controller's instructions. They are also looking out the windscreen for potential collisions. I don't know any pilot who doesn't double check before taxiing onto an active runway! Hope this puts your concerns to rest. Ken Ishiguro From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:35 From: "elysium" Subject: Re: PW JT8D-9A versus -15 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Internet Africa Kevin J. Walls wrote in article ... >I am having great difficulty convincing my airline that there is nothing >wrong with the PW JT8D-9A on a B737-200. > >The airline wants only PW JT8D-15's on their B737-200s. > >Can anyone explain the main differences and help me "sell" the 9A as a good >workhorse. Can only imagine they need the extra 1000lb thrust for operational reasons, i.e. weight and temperature WAT limits. Operating hot and high? Have worked both motors ----- each is bulletproof. The A ( 9A ) signifies reduced "smoke" combustors & plasma coated NGV's. The -15 is approx 100lbs heavier, and gains it's thrust advantage by way of a revised inlet case, 1 & 2 fan and stator re-design, and basically hurling a bit more gas through a hotter back end aerodynamically enhanced turbine section. I believe the trade off is probably lower disc times on the -15, which would have to be provisioned for coupled with costlier component prices. There are a lot more spare -9's floating about, so they are easier & cheaper to procure come the hallowed day you finally blow one. I haven't the specifics at hand, but if you require some numbers crunched and operational specifics e-mail me and I'll do some homework. P.S. It's the airframe that needs changing, not the donkeys ---- Fly Douglas ! ; ) -- elysium@iafrica.com " Slow to erect, quick to topple -- A maverick gimbal ". From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:35 From: Chris Dahler Subject: Re: PW JT8D-9A versus -15 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net Kevin J. Walls wrote: > > I am having great difficulty convincing my airline that there is nothing > wrong with the PW JT8D-9A on a B737-200. > > The airline wants only PW JT8D-15's on their B737-200s. > > Can anyone explain the main differences and help me "sell" the 9A as a good > workhorse. Why do you want -9A's so bad? It may be a good engine, but it doesn't provide the increased performance the -15 does. If your company is in the charter business, the more power the better. Airlines with well established route structures can live with lower powered engines (such as -7's or -9's on 727's and 737's) because there is a known quantity of routes on their system that these aircraft will always be able to operate on without having payload restrictions. It sounds like your airline is in the process of purchasing older 737's, and that probably means the airline is either a startup scheduled service carrier or a charter airline. Both of these types of airlines need aircraft with as much flexibility as possible because 1. the scheduled startup has few routes and so cannot be picky about which routes their lower-powered aircraft serve; and 2. the charter airline needs to be able to operate virtually anywhere and cannot afford to impose payload restrictions as most tour operators want to pack as many people into the aircraft as possible. In either case, the higher performance aircraft is a far better option; the lower your performance, the more restrictive your operation is forced to be, and that doesn't spell profits for smaller airlines. If your airline is a larger airline which is thinking of getting rid of all their -9A powered 737's or is thinking about re-engining the -9's to -15's, there is nothing wrong with either idea. A higher performance aircraft simply has more flexibility, and that will translate into higher profits. Chris Dahler dahler@iglobal.net From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:35 From: Chris Elberfeld Subject: Re: PW JT8D-9A versus -15 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: STOPSPAMelberfeld@sprintmail.com Kevin J. Walls wrote: > I am having great difficulty convincing my airline that there is nothing > wrong with the PW JT8D-9A on a B737-200. > > The airline wants only PW JT8D-15's on their B737-200s. > > Can anyone explain the main differences and help me "sell" the 9A as a good > workhorse. I'm no expert, but my experience (a while ago)in working load control (weight and balance) tells me that if your line wants to run full planes on a hot day, it should go with the -15 engines. The carrier that I work for has both types, and it's not unusual to leave mail and freight behind when the pax and bag load is heavy, even on two hour flights, with -9 aircraft. Sometimes they'll take off with a full load and make a planned fuel stop. That's a nice way to make the plane at least 45 minutes late, and it doesn't look very professional. I remember the first day I wokred load control on the 737-200 (I was used to -300's). Ninety minutes flying time, about 70 pax, some mail, and freight. A few thousand pounds to spare, no problem. Except no one told me when the prior flight to the same destination cancelled and the passnger load was suddenly to capacity. After my surprise when the gate agent called the count in, I ran the numbers and here comes a bigger surprise. Off comes the mail, freight, and six nonrev. The delay was only about 25 minutes or so. Then again, maybe you should convince your company of the merits of the "lead sled". Then maybe they will buy ours. :-) From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:35 From: showie@uo.guelph.ca Subject: Propellor "reverse thrust" Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Biled heids 'r us On the subject of reverse thrust, I took a flight on a Manx Airlines Shorts 330 a few years back. When the plane landed, a big roar went up and the plane slowed dramatically. Do prop planes such as this deploy reverse thrust by somehow altering the pitch of the propellor blades to the extent they "blow" air forward? Or is something else taking place? Just curious.. Steve Howie Netnews and Listserv Admin University of Guelph From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:35 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 17 Aug 1997, P. Wezeman (myself) wrote: > ....power equals thrust times speed, which is a > handier formula. In the example, your speed is ten feet per five seconds, > which is two feet per second. Multiplying this by the force of fifty > pounds gives fifty pounds times two feet per second or fifty foot-pounds > per second, the same answer as before. Of course, that should be one hundred foot pounds per second. I used a spell checker, but obviously what I need is a math checker that can do word problems. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:35 From: Chris Elberfeld Subject: Re: $%#% news media! (UA 737 engine failure in Portland, Or) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: STOPSPAMelberfeld@sprintmail.com Wayne Dohnal wrote: > A United 737 lost an engine on departure from Portland, Or. Friday morning > and returned with an uneventful landing. The first report I heard on the > local news said that they dumped fuel before landing. I didn't think the > 737 could dump fuel. Can it? And it was only on a 600 mile flight (to > SFO), so I wouldn't think they'd have full fuel anyway. > > Later in the afternoon the news report said "they switched over to the > other engine and landed safely". Makes me wonder what the general public > thinks after hearing this jibberish. Does the media ever get it right? I heard the "breaking story" on this one on the AM drive time radio news on a San Francisco radio station. From the initial treatment of the story, anyone driving to SFO to pick up a loved from this flight would have had the daylights scared out of them. Something like "We are just learning that a Unted flight enroute from Portalnd to SFO has an a emergency onbaord and is returning to Portland. It's UNconfirmed but we understand that there are problems with the landing gear, one engine, and the hydaulic system. Stay tuned for more on this breaking story". Commercials. Traffic. Sports. Weather. Then an inteview with someone from the PDX Port Authority, who said that the plane had blown a tire on takeoff, one engine had been thottled back to idle as a result of possible ingestion of tire debris,and that the flight had returned to PDX without further incident, and that UA was rebooking passngers on other flights. I suppose the radio staion have waited 7-10 minutes to get the facts, but then I might not have listened to their commercials, traffic, sports, and weather. When it comes to aviation safety related stories sensationalism and specutation are the rule with most media outlets. From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:35 From: gerwocii@aol.com (GERWOCII) Subject: Re: $%#% news media! (UA 737 engine failure in Portland, Or) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >As a one-time $%#% of the media I can tell you that the spokesperson >for the airline/airport/railroad/power plant, or whatever, quite >often gives out the misinformation. And you'd wonder sometimes if >the media spokesperson knows what a plane looks like. You have got to admit that the media in recent years has missrepresented the airline industry. You get this unfair image of reckless pilots screaming around they sky risking the lives of their passangers. When the truth of the matter is the airlines in the United States are probally the most regulated industry sans nulear power in the world. Let me tell you why I belive this representation is unfair. The aviation ingorant segment of the population relies on news media for their information reguarding the state of comercial and recreational aviation. When they are missinformed by their own deeds or someone elses that missinformation becomes in many peoples minds fact. It is not my intention to discredit the media. They are under the same preasure we all are every day to preform. You have to get the story before the other guy right? There is this belief that the public wants the awnsers right away. I do not think this is true. There is still money to be made and places people need to get to in a hurry. People will fly no matter what what awnsers are presented to them. So mabey I am worried about nothing. Uh Oh Here comes a flock of WHAAA WHAAA's!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Joe Walsh From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:35 From: "Marc Guimond" Subject: Information needed Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Microtec Internet, Inc. I was just recently told by uncertain sources that airplanes in the Boeing 747-400 family where able to fly inverted. I would like to know if it is truely possible both theoretically and practically for such a massive craft to do so. If you can prove that such a maneuver is indeed possible (or though to be possible), or if it has already been done, I would like to know. If you answer this message, please try to give me detailed information and, if possible, links to pertinent documents on the web. From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:36 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net Filip De Vos wrote: > Considering the benefits of twins, would investing in a bit of concrete > not be advantagious by the airlines with large Asia-America traffic? > > (I had the same thoughts concerning some Atlantic diversion sites in > Greenland earlier. To my knowledge no Greenland sites were expanded to > allow acces to bigger planes like 767s) If we were in the early "facilitation" age of aviation, a la Pan Am Clippers paving the way across the Pacific, I'd say yes, but with the economics of today's industry, no. Given the expected low utilization rates of these facilities, there is no non-safety related return on the investment, by either airline or public entity. -- Bob Mann R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Airline Industry Analysis and Consulting Port Washington, NY 11050 USA office 516-944-0900, fax-7280, mailto:rwmannco@interport.net http://www.interport.net/~rwmannco/ From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:36 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Considering the benefits of twins, would investing in a bit of concrete >> not be advantagious by the airlines with large Asia-America traffic? >If we were in the early "facilitation" age of aviation, a la Pan Am >Clippers paving the way across the Pacific, I'd say yes, but with the >economics of today's industry, no. Given the expected low utilization >rates of these facilities, there is no non-safety related return on the >investment, by either airline or public entity. I disagree. I know various countries, including Russia and China, charge for flying over their airspace. Tomorrow's Wall St. Journal (Wednesday, August 20) just happens to have an article on p. A16 (in the Western Edition) titled "Air Santa? Siberians Are Seeking Pie in the Sky By Marketing Routes to Asia Via the North Pole" which has some real numbers. That article says "the Russians charge an estimated $1,800 a flight for the limited flights they allow in an effort to get hard currency" plus extra "royalties." The article quotes an estimation that it's necessary to save at least 18 minutes of flying time to make the shortcuts pay off. On the other hand, a flight like United's ORD-HKG -- and Northwest's recently approved MSP-HKG -- probably couldn't operate at all without access to Russian (and Chinese) airspace. Going a step further, if paying an added fee to the Russians in return for their guarantee of a suitable enroute alternate (absent unusually bad weather) means you can use a 777 or A330-200 instead of a 747-400 that's considerably more expensive to operate becase it's too large for the market and has more engines, then paying that fee might not seem to bad. If the airlines want the economies of twins on routes like JFK-SIN and don't want to incur *major* detours, the Russians have a captive audience. Both sides get a return on their investment. BTW, one of the two airports in Northern Siberia noted on the map in the WSJ article is Dikson, which I had suggested would make a good alternate. (The other is Khatanga.) -- 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 Aug 20 02:38:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:36 From: m@bang.org Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: a2i network kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > I'd think it much more likely that one or more Russian airports on the > Arctic Coast would be upgraded as needed, which would allow the entire > Arctic region to be flown under the existing 180 minute rules. That would certainly solve the problem, but who would pay for it? Keeping runways free of snow year-round in northern Siberia would be expensive. M Carling -- Microsoft Network is prohibited from reproducing this work, in whole or in part. Copyright 1997, M Carling. License is available to Microsoft Network to reproduce this work for $1000. Unauthorized reproduction by Microsoft Network constitutes agreement to these terms. Please report violations to m@bang.org and postmaster@microsoft.com. From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:36 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> I'd think it much more likely that one or more Russian airports on the >> Arctic Coast would be upgraded as needed, which would allow the entire >> Arctic region to be flown under the existing 180 minute rules. >That would certainly solve the problem, but who would pay for it? Keeping >runways free of snow year-round in northern Siberia would be expensive. As I mentioned in another article, Dikson and Tiksi appear to be in strategic locations from a military standpoint. The Russian military may already be paying to keep those runways free of snow throughout the winter. -- 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 Aug 20 02:38:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:36 From: nareid@online.no (Helge Nareid) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Organization: Telenor Online Public Access On 19 Aug 97 04:14:05 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >I agree that BRW is dicey. Let's try a different set, trying not to >go too far out on a limb: > >FAI Fairbanks, Alaska, US >CYRB Resolute Bay, Northwest Territories, Canada >BGTL Thule Air Base, Greenland >ENVA Trondheim, Norway ^^^^ Living in Trondheim, I just couldn't resist replying to this post, even though I have to admit that my knowledge of aviation affairs is rather limited. Firstly, I don't recognize the code "ENVA". The airport normally handling civilian traffic for Trondheim is V=E6rnes (or Vaernes), for which I've only seen the code "TRD". There is, however, a military airbase close to Trondheim, =D8rlandet (or Oerlandet), for which I don't know the code. >LED St. Petersburg, Russia >MMK Murmansk, Russia >OVB/UNNN Novosibirsk, Russia >GDX/UHMM Magadan, Russia > >Hopefully we can agree that Fairbanks is viable. Others have noted >Resolute Bay as a viable alternate; it's nearly redundant with Thule, >which UA lists as an emergency airport and which reportedly has more >than adequate facilities. Trondheim is already used by UA as an ETOPS >alternate. Trondheim airport, V=E6rnes, is a fairly busy airport with mainly Norwegian domestic flights, and normally doesn't handle anything bigger than 737s (Braathens SAFE) and MD-80/DC-9s (SAS). It does occassionally handle 757s and 767s on charter flights. But V=E6rnes is also a Nato base, and has been built to receive Nato rapid deployment forces in case of a sudden attack, so it has been known to receive transatlantic 747s and heavy military transports as part of Nato exercises. The terminal is fairly new, so the logistics of handling the passengers from a stranded 777 or 767 could probably be dealt with without too many problems. =D8rland airport is an active air force base, with an F-16 squadron, and it is also a base for Nato's Awacs planes. The civilian traffic is minimal, but I imagine that the base can handle fairly large planes at need. The civilian terminal facilities are AFAIK rather primitive. There are also other airports in central and northern Norway which can handle fairly large planes - also built with rapid deployment of Nato forces in mind (the immense military complex on the Kola peninsula is after all quite close). Bod=F8 (BOO), Bardufoss (BDU) and Lakselv (LKL) spring to mind. As far as I know, Bod=F8 was used as a refueling stop for the early SAS transpolar flights to Anchorage (and further on to Los Angeles and Tokyo). There is also an airport at Svalbard - Longyearbyen (LYR), but I don't think that can handle anything much bigger than the 737s and MD-80s flown there by Braathens and SAS. It must, however, be one of the northermost airports in the world. A Russian airliner crashed on the approach to this airport about a year ago. >Moving into Russia, St. Petersburg, Murmansk, Novosibirsk, and Magadan >all receive regular scheduled service. I assume, perhaps erroneously, >that if it's reasonable to plan to fly to an airport, it's reasonable >to use it as an alternate. St. Petersburg and Magadan both receive >scheduled jet service by Western carriers throughout the year (e.g., >FRA-LED on LH using 737-300, ANC-GDX on AS using MD-80). The only >Western service I could find to Murmansk was Finnair (AY) flying >HEL-MMK with an ATR-72, though Aeroflot takes a Tu-154 in there so it >can handle a reasonably large aircraft. Braathens fly 737s between Troms=F8 (TOS) and Murmansk (BU542/543), there is also a service between Kirkenes (KKN) and Murmansk by Wider=F8e, but they only use DH-8s. SAS fly MD-87s between Stockholm and Arkhangelsk. There are probably several military airbases on the Kola peninsula and in Siberia which can handle aircraft of any size, but I can't imagine western aircraft being permitted to land there except in the direst emergencies. - Helge Nareid From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:36 From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA On 19 Aug 97 04:14:03 , m@bang.org said: m> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: m> I've never been to Barrow, but I have been north of Fairbanks, and m> I suspect that keeping the runway clear at Barrow would be quite an m> undertaking. I've been to Barrow. That's Wiley Post International (I think) Airport. Post and Rogers took off from there on their last flight. The airport runway and ramp were the only bit of paving around; everything else was gravel. There was no taxiway parallel to the runway. Instead, we back-taxied. > Deeper routes pose a greater challenge. Barrow, Alaska (BRW) is > well- positioned, but the longest runway is only 6,500' long. > Weather is likely a problem, though the presence of ILS helps. > Assuming BRW is a suitable alternate, JFK-HKG is well within 180 > minute rules using FAI, BRW, UHMM, and SEL as alternates. I believe the runway is weight-limited, by the way. The ramp may be even more limited. If so, the airport would be effectively closed until the heavy was flown out. Then they'd bring in the 737s and L-100s (civilian C-130s) to ferry the passengers out. Somehow, I don't see the pax as wildly happy about spending so much time in Barrow, although it's a great place if you're a birder interested in ducks and loons and it's summer. Maybe the Inuit would do the blanket dance, though. m> The greatest challenge at BRW is likely to be keeping the runway m> clear of snow. We can be confident that there will be a significant m> number of days each year when BRW will not be available due to m> weather. Will any airline schedule such a service if they don't m> have the range to divert around BRW on such days? If (as is likely) m> not then the route must be operated with equipment having the range m> to fly farther south on a longer course against typically greater m> headwinds (westbound). Actually, the problem isn't snow. It's fog. Or so the Markair pilot and the hotel manager both told me. Apparently, the airport closes quite frequently. Barrow itself is right on the water and the airport isn't very far inland. We were there for the Summer Solstice, 21 June. It was a warm summer day, reaching a high of about 29 degF (-2 degC). We flew in and out OK, but the airport had been closed by fog for a day or two a couple of days before we got there. m> Also, in the unlikely event of a B777 or A330 diversion to BRW, the m> aircraft might have to depart empty due to the short runway. Then m> smaller aircraft would need to be brought in to collect the pax. I m> don't think BRW has hotel rooms for 300 stranded pax. There might m> be some old Army barracks available. Sleeping outside would be m> unadvisable. There's one hotel in Barrow. It has about a dozen rooms. However, the people used the oil money to build a very nice school complex and I imagine that stranded passengers could be put up in the gym. Another thing they did with the money was to put in a fabulous utility tunnel system that everyone uses to get around in the winter (the system helps keep the permafrost frozen, which is really why they put it in). No more getting lost in the white-outs getting around town. And the mosquitos don't like tunnels, so the danger of anemia is greatly reduced. There are four places to eat--the snack bar at the airport, a Mexican restaurant (serving the best Mexican food north of the Arctic circle), a Chinese restaurant, and a diner. > Dropping BRW requires a more significant diversion, but might not be > untenable. Based on my observations I do not believe that BRW is a viable alternative. It's a good L-100 and 737 airport, but that's pretty much the limit. The town also lacks the infrastructure to handle the number of passengers carried B777s and A330s for any significant length of time. I imagine that they'd use it as an alternate one time and then word of mouth would send passengers to any flight that would guarantee not to stop in Barrow. -- 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 Wed Aug 20 02:38:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:37 From: Chris Elberfeld Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: STOPSPAMelberfeld@sprintmail.com Karl Swartz wrote: > >(I had the same thoughts concerning some Atlantic diversion sites in > >Greenland earlier. To my knowledge no Greenland sites were expanded to > >allow acces to bigger planes like 767s) > > In all the ETOPS literature I've read (early feasibility studies, UA > flight supplement, etc.), the only alternate in Greenland is Sondre > Stromfjord, Someone in the NG is bound to have more precise info, but understand that Thule has a failrly good sized runway. Prior to it being decommsioned as a US Air Force base, USAF ran some pretty heavy iron in there. SAS flew 767's in there until fairly recently; that service has been replaced by First Air 727-10's, operating with Greelandair flight numbers from SFJ. From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:37 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> In all the ETOPS literature I've read (early feasibility studies, UA >> flight supplement, etc.), the only alternate in Greenland is Sondre >> Stromfjord, >Someone in the NG is bound to have more precise info, but understand >that Thule has a failrly good sized runway. Prior to it being >decommsioned as a US Air Force base, USAF ran some pretty heavy iron >in there. About a year ago, someone mentioned that Thule has a 10,000 foot asphalt runway, along with ILS and other instrumentation (good for reducing the probability of weather-induced unavailability) and all the ground support and emergency lodging one could want. (See http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html for archives of the sci.aeronautics.airliners newsgroup.) Regarding my comment about Sondre Stromfjord being the only alternate in Greenland, while editing I inadvertantly dropped an important qualifier, namely, that I was looking at material related to flying the North Atlantic between Europe and North America. Thule seems to be a fine alternate, but it's much too far north to be of interest for the routes I was writing about. -- 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 Aug 20 02:38:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:37 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca m@bang.org wrote: > Also, in the unlikely event of a B777 or A330 diversion to BRW, the aircraft > might have to depart empty due to the short runway. Then smaller aircraft > would need to be brought in to collect the pax. I don't think BRW has hotel > rooms for 300 stranded pax. There might be some old Army barracks available. > Sleeping outside would be unadvisable. Inuvik (North West Territories, not far from Alaska border) has a fairly long runway (capable of handling large transports (used for cruise missile launch testing in years past). It also has daily jet service to the south and I beleive that they manage to keep the runway open all year round. Barrow is definitely more "remote" than Inuvik. From kls Wed Aug 20 02:38:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Aug 97 02:38:37 From: domk1031@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: $%#% news media! (UA 737 engine failure in Portland, Or) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany On 17 Aug 97 15:41:09, kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>The 737-200 did not have fuel dump capabilities because its MGTOW and MLW >>were very close. I can't speak for the big fan versions, but I suspect they >>are the same. > >The weights appear to be close enough for the 2nd generation 737s, >too, so I'd guess they also have no need for fuel dump. I couldn't >find MLW for the 3rd generation 737s. > > ---- basic ---- --- heaviest -- > MGTOW MLW MGTOW MLW >737-300 124,500 114,000 140,000 116,600 >737-400 139,000 121,000 150,500 124,000 >737-500 116,000 110,000 134,000 110,000 Current issue of FLIGHT (20-26 August) quotes B737-700 MTOW 69,400 kg (153,000 lbs) MLW 58,060 kg (128,000 lbs) MZFW 54,650 kg (120,480 lbs) OEW 37,585 kg (82,859 lbs) Burkhard From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:51 From: Morten Norby Larsen Subject: DC-8-61 Photos Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM We are currently developing some CBT modules for CRM training, and for that purpose we will need to present the accident that happened on 28 Dec. '78 to a DC-8-61 in Portland. We would like some photos of the cockpit as illustration and the instrumentation - especially the gear lights. It is for use with Lauda Air Italy. All help would be appreciated! Thank you in advance, Morten ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Morten Norby Larsen morten@magisterludi.com Magister Ludi Multimedia Lab Phone: +39 2 26 11 72 80 Via Battaglia 8, I-20127 Milano, Italy Fax: +39 2 26 11 67 33 http://www.magisterludi.com From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:51 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Asiana A330 order is official Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com The Asiana contract with Airbus for the A330 is now official. The total orders are not as high as expected. The 8 orders for the A330-200 are divided in 3 firm orders plus five options. For the A330-300 there are 3 firm orders and 7 options, bringing the total to 10. Further options for 10 A330 are also part of the contract. (Source Airbus) I wonder why they reduced the firm orders : - No actual needs for that many a/c - Higher flexibility for converting options may have been given from Airbus, making a big initial order unnecessary - No governmnet approval - They have the A340-500 in mind (unlikely) As a consequence of this deal I updated my '97 orders page. Note also the UA order for 3 B747-400. Regards, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:52 From: stevec00@juno.com (Joel S Cole) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Lastly, in the book "727 Scrapbook" by Len Morgan, there is a chapter on >a Braniff 727 where a dragging brake overheated a tire. It exploded >after retraction, and blew off the gear doors and a large hole in the >top of the wing. The aircraft made a safe landing. The most spectacular event I've seen(albeit on video tape) was the Refused Takeoff Test of the USAF E-4 equipped with GE CF-6-50C engines. The RTO test was to certify the B747-200 at 800,000 lb TOGW for the USAF. The certified TOGW at that time was 178,000 lbs. Boeing requested to run the test at a heavier GW for Lufthansa. The USAF gave permission for Boeing to fill the empty hull to 820,000 lb max TOGW. During the RTO test after max brakes were applied and before the a/c slowly came to a halt, you could already see the wheel hubs glowing white hot. Even though the flames were invisible, you could tell there a fire had started already. The test E-4 stopped and turned into the breeze and sat to wait out the required time, unassisted by fire department. Then thru the smoke you could see puffs of smoke as the tires blew their fuse plugs. Then things really got popping. Entire wheel & tires began to blow off the axle. One came off at enough speed to hit the bottom of the wing before striking the far outboard engine(#1 or #4). In all 5 wheels out of the 12 blew off the axles. Test Engineers suspect that the brakes heat output was so excessive that the entire wheel assembly was pushed off of the axle. The fire got out of hand and was put out, thus failing the RTO test. One of the flight crew broke an arm during the evacuation(subject of another thread). The wing-to-body fiber glas fairing was damaged but no metal was replaced- -primarily due to the fact that the aircraft had a heavy coat of nuclear survivability paint covering it. This event is included on a Boeing Flight Test video, but the US Air Force's camera had a better angle. STeve Cole~ FedEx A/C Engineering [ 2nd Lt on E-4 Program Office at the time] From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:52 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Iain Stuart (big-iain@big-iain.demon.co.uk) wrote: : Many Moons ago, the following question was asked..... : >> The JT9D was flight tested : >> on a B-52 and the RB.211 was flight tested on the port pylon of a : >> VC-10. How was the CF6 flight tested? Perhaps on a C-5A, from whose : >> TF-39 engines the CF6 was developed? On what, then, were the TF-39 : >> engines flight tested? : OK, maybe I'm being the Devil's Advocate here, but Why bother ? : >From 60 years of gas turbine flying, improved Simulated Facilities, : improved mathematical modelling and suchlike, there is minimal info to : be gleaned from flight testing in an unrepresentative environment. : All it does is give the Luddites a warm feeling. : And that is MY opinion. Have you heard of the Hubbell Space Telescope optics? K8EF -- Gerry From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:52 From: stephen@genesis1.physics.YALE.EDU (Stephen B. Selipsky) Subject: Re: B747 technical questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > On one of the first test flights (on the first 747), the PW4084 had a > compressor stall. This turned out to be due to insufficient rigidity > in the fan housing. At takeoff power, under high angle-of-attack, and > with a cross-wind, the fan housing ovalised too much and impacted the > fan blades. It's a good thing they did go ahead with flight testing! On the "21st Century Jet" PBS program on the 777 project, the P&W representative claimed that they had previously scheduled a "high angle-of-attack, cross-wind" ground test that would "definitely" have picked up the stall problem, but the flight test result happened to have come in earlier. Hard for an outsider to know the "damage control" to "reality" ratio there... I gathered from the program that a compressor stall is simply flow separation from the compressor blades, no different from a wing stall; does it necessarily also involve or cause mechanical conflicts as described above? Or (hazy memory here) did the ovalizing cause too much of an air gap between blades and housing, thus somehow inducing the airflow separation? --- Stephen B. Selipsky stephen@genesis1.physics.yale.edu Yale University Physics Dept. Phone: 203/432-6923 P.O. Box 208120 Fax: 203/432-6175 New Haven, CT 06520-8120 Home: 203/782-2065 From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:53 From: stevec00@juno.com (Joel S Cole) Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I found it interesting that you say some operators land DC10-30 with CLG retracted to save landing fee costs. I know that you can land with CLG retracted, but I thought there was a GW penalty or a special inspection required in cases of an emergency landing. There are some potential consequence. (I know there is a TOGW penalty.) Several parts of the Main L/G are Life Limited; with different limits for different TOGWs. Life Limits are the total landing cycles a part can be flown based on fatigue tests. Operating the DC10-30 with CLG Retracted requires tracking these parts and additional parts to a new set of Life Limits. Granted, this difference is small and operators probably do not track the cycles for CLG Stowed for one or two landing. Here are some examples: PART NO. & NAME L I F E L I M I T S CLG Extended CLG stowed ARG7312 MLG Piston 65,000 63,800 total cyc. ARG7331 Torque Link 27,300 23,900 ARG7558 Fwd Trun Bolt -0- 41,600 ARG7322 Side Brace 53,000 41,520 Note the Center L/G is considered a redundant structure and is not critical to landing loads. Therefore there are no Life Limited parts in Center L/G Assembly. You can see the effect on the Main L/G parts if the aircraft is operated with CLG stowed. One part, the Fwd Trunnion Bolt, does not normally have a life limit but when CLG is stowed it is required to be tracked. Taking the worse case part, the Side Brace, if 100 landing cycles are flown with CLG stowed, it is equivalent of accumulating 127 cycles flying with the CLG. 100 cycles[CLG stowed] X (53,000)/(41520) = 127 Or stated another way; Ratio [100/41520] = Ratio [127/53000] Bean counter would think of it in these terms: A $150,000-part expends $2.83 of its total life per landing vs $3.61 for CLG stowed(using the Brace's figures). Then applying the 127/100 cycle conversion, this would equate to $4.58--a 60% increase in cost.(*) Now, concerning A/C Jacking to stow CLG. The CLG can be retracted with the A/C on the ground but the strut pressure MUST be bled off. If not, the Retract Actuator will pull the CLG up and internal pressure will extend the Piston, causing damage to the Retract Actuator and possibly the Lock Links. Conversely, to extend the CLG on the ground, it can be done by deflating the shock strut, extending the gear until fully locked and servicing the Strut. But then the CLG strut service must be done with a strut keeper installed. If this GSE part is not available, then the next best method is to jack the A/C and fully extend the CLG strut--taking you back to where you started. I hope this info is helpful. United and American were NOT even tracking the Life Limited parts until a few years ago, so don't be surprised if many are not aware of this requirement. STeve Cole~ STeveC00@juno.com (*) I disclaim any errors in my cost analysis. PS: In my questionable cost analysis, I think I could be accused of double jeopardy. I applied a cycle "cost" and then multiplied it by difference in part usage cost: probably should not have done both. Realistically the cost factor would be about 10% or so. From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:53 From: Thomas Holland Subject: Re: differing MGTOW for same model aircraft operated by different airlines? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: I'm not organized at all! Karl Swartz wrote: > [...] > In some cases, the difference may be nothing more than what the > manufacturer charges. A higher MGTOW aircraft is more capable, so > the manufacturer can charge more. Another important point are landing fees. At Condor, where I work, we have two types of B757s, one with a MTOW of 113.4t and one with a MTOW of 103.9t. However going to some short-distance countrys we reduce the MTOW to 99.9t to save on landing fees. (On the B767 we reduce to 145.6 for the same reason) To go to the reduced MTOW and back we have to perform some special procedure -approved by Boeing-, which involves turning a dial in the Cockpit and writing down the MTOW on the loadsheet. Stupid, but if that's what the bureaucrats want... BTW as far as I know there are no structural or software differences between our light and heavy B757s, just minor details like a second crossfeed valve (for ETOPS). /innot/ -- Thomas Holland, innot@frankfurt.netsurf.de From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:53 From: David Summergreene Subject: Re: differing MGTOW for same model aircraft operated by different airlines? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Summergreene Enterprises Reply-To: dsummerg@hutch.com.au In article John Kohl wrote: > In article > kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > > [ a variety of statistics regarding different MGTOWs for different > carriers' delivered B757s] > > What differs between the aircraft ordered by the different carriers that > affects the MGTOW, i.e. why do they not all have the same MGTOW for the > same variant of the same model aircraft? Is it just a reflection of the > different cabin appointments, or are there other > structural/mechanical/fuel tank/something else differences? Another reason not mentioned is landing fees. I work for QANTAS as a second officer on the 767 and we have two different MTOW's for the same type of aircraft - B767-338. The reason is because it cost a lot more to land a aircraft with a MTOW 185t compared to 172t. So QANTAS decided that all our 767-338's didn't need the 185 tonne MTOW, so out of our 19 767-338 only three have the 185tonne MTOW, the other 16 have the 172t limit. From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:53 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net Karl Swartz wrote: > >> Considering the benefits of twins, would investing in a bit of concrete > >> not be advantagious by the airlines with large Asia-America traffic? > > >If we were in the early "facilitation" age of aviation, a la Pan Am > >Clippers paving the way across the Pacific, I'd say yes, but with the > > >economics of today's industry, no. Given the expected low utilization > >rates of these facilities, there is no non-safety related return on the > >investment, by either airline or public entity. > > I disagree. I know various countries, including Russia and China, > charge for flying over their airspace. Tomorrow's Wall St. Journal > (Wednesday, August 20) just happens to have an article on p. A16 (in > the Western Edition) titled "Air Santa? Siberians Are Seeking Pie in > the Sky By Marketing Routes to Asia Via the North Pole" which has some > real numbers. > > That article says "the Russians charge an estimated $1,800 a flight > for the limited flights they allow in an effort to get hard currency" > plus extra "royalties." Let's not confuse enroute fees, which are standard world-wide now proposed in the US and defray ATC operating and upgrade costs with fees to create and maintain "brick and mortar" airport facilities investments. And, for this to be a viable commercial alternate, we are talking more than ILS and pavement: all the various governmental (FIS equivalent) and airport ground services and logistics/hotel services that carriers would rely on. Figure Bangor, ME as the rough minimum requirement. The investment required for the landside portion of the minimum facility requirement is a multiple of the airside. Again, and with all due respect to your in-the-money routing comments, reinforced by today's WSJ article, given the low utilization of these facilties I still can't see thge viability of such an investment. Further, I can't see any carrier agreeing to a precedent of regional aviation authorities charging enroute fees for ground services; the "me too" stampede to charge such fees would be audible over the jet blast of carriers fleeing the sectors where the fees are charged. Instead of the estimated 18 minute breakeven shorter flying time, we're talking a multiple of this required savings. -- - Bob Mann R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Airline Industry Analysis and Consulting Port Washington, NY 11050 USA office 516-944-0900, fax-7280, mailto:rwmannco@interport.net http://www.interport.net/~rwmannco/ From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:53 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> That article says "the Russians charge an estimated $1,800 a flight >> for the limited flights they allow in an effort to get hard currency" >> plus extra "royalties." >Let's not confuse enroute fees, which are standard world-wide now >proposed in the US and defray ATC operating and upgrade costs with fees >to create and maintain "brick and mortar" airport facilities >investments. Fair enough. >And, for this to be a viable commercial alternate, we are talking more >than ILS and pavement: all the various governmental (FIS equivalent) >and airport ground services and logistics/hotel services that carriers >would rely on. Maybe. If they keep everyone on the plane, or shepherd them to another one, they're just transit passengers and no FIS is needed. Since the issue is an ETOPS alternate, not an emergency airport, one could perhaps argue that hotels aren't need either -- just keep everyone on the aircraft until a replacement is ferried in. Not a good way to keep everyone happy, but it's not unprecedented. I'm told that Polynesian acquired some 767s a few years ago and started flying Apia-LAX. To do so, they paid for an atoll airstrip to be spiffed up enough for them to use it as an ETOPS alternate. I doubt they built hotels and whatnot, and I'd bet there wasn't a lot of existing capacity. > Again, and with all due respect to your in-the-money routing comments, > reinforced by today's WSJ article, given the low utilization of these > facilties I still can't see thge viability of such an investment. Once again, if they're already in use for military operations, the investment might not be all that much. > Further, I can't see any carrier agreeing to a precedent of regional > aviation authorities charging enroute fees for ground services; the "me > too" stampede to charge such fees would be audible over the jet blast of > carriers fleeing the sectors where the fees are charged. True enough if you have viable alternatives. Before the Russians allowed any overflights of their airspace by western carriers, it was easy enough to fly US-Japan while avoiding Russian airspace. (Not quite so easy for Anchorage-Korea, at least for KAL 007.) At the moment, US carriers aren't allowed to fly over Iran, so they take a little detour on LHR-DEL flights. Again, no big deal. But now we're talking about a route that naturally goes directly over the heart of Russia. It's a big country -- imagine trying to fly Toronto to Mexico City without overflying the United States, only Russia is bigger yet. > Instead of the estimated 18 minute breakeven shorter flying time, > we're talking a multiple of this required savings. I'm told that JFK-SIN is a fairly thin route (<200 pax/day) but potentially high yield for the seats you can sell. With no enroute alternates, you need an aircraft with three or more engines. None are available with sufficient range, though either a hypothetical 747-400IGW or A340-500"IGW" could to it, though they would be too big. A 777-200X or perhaps an improved A330-200 would be the right size and *much* more economical due to having only two engines, but without the use of Dikson or some other nearby Russian alternate, you need a detour of a number of hours. United gripes about the overflight fees, but they still pay 'em because their only alternative with ORD-HKG is not to fly it. If the Russians demand some extra cash to provide an alternate so twins can fly routes like JFK-SIN, the airlines will cough it up. -- 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 Aug 27 03:57:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:53 From: vladimir@london.physics.purdue.edu (Vladimir P. Gusiatnikov) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Physics Department, Purdue University M Carling wrote: >kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >> I'd think it much more likely that one or more Russian airports on the >> Arctic Coast would be upgraded as needed, which would allow the entire >> Arctic region to be flown under the existing 180 minute rules. >That would certainly solve the problem, but who would pay for it? Keeping >runways free of snow year-round in northern Siberia would be expensive. In the August 20 WSJ they have an article about the negotiations the Siberian local officials held with the FAA recently concerning the issues of opening new transpolar air routes. The article shows a map compiled by the Siberians indicating Dikson and Khatanga as alternates or technical stops for JFK/IAD/ORD-SIN and LAX/SFO-DEL/KHI. The article does not indicate who would pay for the maintenance and expansion of these airfields, although it stresses the fact that Russia's overflight fees already are the highest in the world. Vladimir From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:53 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca m@bang.org wrote: > That would certainly solve the problem, but who would pay for it? Keeping > runways free of snow year-round in northern Siberia would be expensive. Arctic weather patterns do not generally bring much precipitation. Definitely not as much as in the south where humidity from sub-tropical areas makes its way up and is dumped as snow when sufficiently north. Witness all those big snow storms that occur in New York city. A large proportion come from the south or south-west, very few from the north. So, keeping the runways clear is not a problem per say. Of course, the snow-clearing season is much longer, and the lack of precipitation is perhaps compensated by snowdrifts due to high winds. Operating costs are also higher due to the high cost of living and transportation, especially in places not connected by road to the south. There is a one-two week period in the summer of very active shipping where goods are delivered and stocked by each community, and this includes the fuel that goes into large tanks that will last until the following year). A little used airport that doubles as an emergency runway for trans-arctic flights to Asia would also require fuel storage. Don't know how long jet fuel can be kept in a tank and what sort of effect the wide variations in temperatures (from -50c to +30c) would have on some emergency-spare-fuel that sits in a tank for years before being needed. If that market were truly profitable, I suspect that the solution would be to develop/approve a twin with greater than 180 ETOPS. After all, if you can survive for more than half an hour on a single engine, whether you fly 180 or 240 minutes shouldn't make much of a difference, would it ? From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:54 From: m@bang.org Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: a2i network Karl wrote: > Hopefully we can agree that Fairbanks is viable. It would be interesting to know how many days each year FAI and other critical alternatives are unavailable. There are a large number of airfields in northern Siberia with long runways built by the Soviets for their Air Defense Force and fewer but with even longer runways built for their Air Force. Unless a large number of alternates exist for any point along each flight path, the routes will change daily in the winter based on which airfields can be cleared of snow. I'm confident that in recent years not enough runways have been clear on enough winter days to permit ETOPS operations. But with airlines paying $1800 or so in hard currency per flight for overflight rights, the Russians might be willing to make enough military airfields available to permit economical ETOPS operations. Even if the Russians do this, it remains easy to imagine days when runways cannot be cleared and the flights must be cancelled or, more likely, make a technical stop somewhere. > Flying JFK-HKG via N78 E164 keeps the flight within 180 minutes of > either Fairbanks or Magadan (at 757 engine-out speeds, with none of > the other alternates mentioned above required) yet adds only 8 miles > (0.099%) to the direct distance. That's certainly a trivial increase, but what happens on those days when Magadan is unavailable and winds are unfavorable? I think that given the range of the B777-200IGW, JFK-HKG service would have to be operated on a schedule that allowed enough time to make a fuel stop either way before the plane needed to depart again. If a B777 departs HKG at 0730 it should arrive JFK at about 1100. If it needs to stop for fuel that day, it wouldn't arrive JFK until perhaps 1300. With a 90 minute turn-around, scheduled departure from JFK could be 1430. A nonstop arrival in HKG would then be about 1930, or 2130 with a technical stop for fuel on days when it would be necessary. If enough airfields in Russia become available, this would probably work, leaving enough time for maintenance at HKG. I believe there's enough traffic for CX and UA to each operate one daily flight. The economics would depend on how often fuel stops were required. Of course, the B777-200X would obviate the need for stops on the JFK-HKG route. > JFK-SIN does not appear to need any deviation. True on days that the alternates are available. I just doubt this would be more than, say, 300 days per year, even if the Russian government allows military bases to be used as alternates. Again, this is highly speculative. JFK-SIN is long enough that the B777-200IGW just cannot fly it nonstop, and an aircraft cannot hold the route captive. The JFK-SIN flight would need to depart prior to the arrival of the SIN-JFK flight in order to have reasonable arrival and departure times at SIN. UA could perhaps use the aircraft for a SIN-JFK-LHR-JFK-SIN rotation departing SIN early in the morning and returning in the evening two days later (three aircraft needed to maintain daily flights). A B777-200X may seem like overkill for JFK-LHR, but it could carry plenty of cargo, which is often more profitable than pax. Singapore Airlines, on the other hand, could RON at JFK and depart early in the morning with a mid-afternoon arrival in SIN. A mid-day departure from SIN would arrive JFK in the evening. Singapore could fit a rotation like HKG-SIN-JFK-SIN-HKG, for example. I can't imagine there is enough JFK-SIN traffic for two daily flights though. Perhaps each carrier could profitably fly 2x week. > 777s flying SFO-LHR have occasionally departed on 1R, which is only > 8,901 feet long. BRW-FAI is only 503 miles, so while the 6,500 foot > runway isn't very generous, I don't think it would be that big of a > problem given the modest range requirement. Good point. It might or might not be possible to get an A330 or B777 out of BRW with the pax onboard. M Carling -- Microsoft Network is prohibited from reproducing this work, in whole or in part. Copyright 1997, M Carling. License is available to Microsoft Network to reproduce this work for $1000. Unauthorized reproduction by Microsoft Network constitutes agreement to these terms. Please report violations to m@bang.org and postmaster@microsoft.com. From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:54 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >There are a large number of airfields in northern Siberia with long runways >built by the Soviets for their Air Defense Force and fewer but with even >longer runways built for their Air Force. Unless a large number of alternates >exist for any point along each flight path, the routes will change daily in >the winter based on which airfields can be cleared of snow. Unless I've missed something, with the early 90 minute ETOPS for trans-Atlantic service, if Sondre Stromfjord was unavailable, there were no alternates for that portion of the flight and they therefore were forced to cancel. O'Hare very rarely closes completely, and I would bet that the Russians are even more practiced at snow removal and that they make damned sure their Air Defense Force bases are not closed for the winter. >> Flying JFK-HKG via N78 E164 keeps the flight within 180 minutes of >> either Fairbanks or Magadan (at 757 engine-out speeds, with none of >> the other alternates mentioned above required) yet adds only 8 miles >> (0.099%) to the direct distance. >That's certainly a trivial increase, but what happens on those days when >Magadan is unavailable and winds are unfavorable? Same thing as when Sondre Stromfjord was unavailable -- cancel the flight. Another reason why having Dikson or a similarly located alternate would be desireable, even if it's technically possible to fly without it. (Non-ETOPS crossings of the North Atlantic in twins are quite possible. For a 757, the penalty was calculated as a 13.5% increase in flight time over a 3- or 4-engined aircraft, a 3,250 kg greater fuel burn, and cancellations about three times more often than even 90-minute ETOPS flights.) >> JFK-SIN does not appear to need any deviation. >True on days that the alternates are available. I just doubt this would be >more than, say, 300 days per year, even if the Russian government allows >military bases to be used as alternates. Again, this is highly speculative. Yes, highly speculative. I don't see any basis whatsoever for the "300 days per year" figure. I could pick 360 or 180 with similar confidence. -- 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 Aug 27 03:57:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:54 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet M Carling (m@bang.org) wrote: >JFK-SIN (like JFK-BKK) has a great circle route going round the other way, >north of Scandanavia and Siberia. However, the route would probably be flown >eastbound in each direction to take advantage of prevailing winds. To be >ETOPS legal would require large deviations from the great circle routes, >which might be advantageous if flown eastbound in both directions. Please >note that this paragraph is highly speculative. Lest anyone forget, there is only one plane passing through the center of the earth and two non-antipodal points on the surface. This defines two great circle paths between the points, a short path and a long path. For instance, if both points are in the northern hemisphere the short path is nearer the north pole than it is to the south pole. The long path is the other one, going nearer the south pole. If the short great circle path goes eastward from A to B, the shortest eastward path from B to A will be the long one. I knew you knew that! (:-)) Gerry K8EF -- Gerry From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:54 From: cstone@math.math.unm.edu (Chris Stone) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept. of Math & Stat, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>That would certainly solve the problem, but who would pay for it? Keeping >>runways free of snow year-round in northern Siberia would be expensive. >As I mentioned in another article, Dikson and Tiksi appear to be in >strategic locations from a military standpoint. The Russian military >may already be paying to keep those runways free of snow throughout >the winter. Perhaps; but the Russian military can afford very little these days, and I suspect keeping runways open for ETOPS operations falls near the bottom of the list. From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:54 From: ergos Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Reply-To: ergos@pacbell.net Karl Swartz wrote: > That article says "the Russians charge an estimated $1,800 a flight > for the limited flights they allow in an effort to get hard currency" > plus extra "royalties." The article quotes an estimation that it's > necessary to save at least 18 minutes of flying time to make the > shortcuts pay off. Not really new, I think. Around 1986 or 1987, I had for the first time the opportunity to fly several "direct routes" (Polar/Siberian) from Western Europe to Japan, instead of the usual Alaskan stop over. The numbers I heard at that time were much higher - in the order of $5000. The equipment was to the best of my knowledge the same (747) but the planes were more full (discussion with cabin crew) and the discounted tickets way harder to find. With one less segment and about 5 hours less, it was undoubtedly worth it... Wonder what Anchorage has become, though? Ergos From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:54 From: Chris Elberfeld Subject: Arctic diversion points (was Re: Fracturing the Pacific) References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: STOPSPAMelberfeld@sprintmail.com > Regarding my comment about Sondre Stromfjord being the only alternate > in Greenland, while editing I inadvertantly dropped an important > qualifier, namely, that I was looking at material related to flying > the North Atlantic between Europe and North America. Thule seems to > be a fine alternate, but it's much too far north to be of interest > for the routes I was writing about. Does anyone in the NG have info about how often SFJ or other arctic diversion points have seen ETOPS, or medical emergency diversions? Last year, the diversion of a Virgin 747-400 to YFB (Iqauluit (sp), formerly Frobisher Bay) received a fair bit of press attention. The flight landed there a due to medical emergency, but got stuck there after a taxiing mishap (I guess the a/c marshaller wasn't used to a 747-400). The passengers were put up in the high school gym, as I recall, and were there for about 24 hrs until another aircraft was brought in. Most of them took it quite well; they got to see a scenic, remote part of the world, and it was spring. I wonder how happy they would have been had the incident taken place in winter. Churchill, Manitoba has received ETOPS diversions by SAS and United 767's. From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:54 From: m@bang.org Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5ti408$oct$17@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: a2i network Thomas Holland wrote: > jimcam@arctic.ca wrote: > > > With 3 hours ETOPS you can take a 767 anywhere > > through the Arctic. > > Unless some airports are unavailable due to weather (not unlikely). Exactly. The questions are: 1) how many days each year will enough suitable airports be available to permit crossing the Arctic without unacceptable detours, and 2) given however many days per year that is, can a carrier make money on the route, given the cost of an added stop on the days when bad weather requires it. This is quite speculative, and there is plenty of room for disagreement. M Carling -- Microsoft Network is prohibited from reproducing this work, in whole or in part. Copyright 1997, M Carling. License is available to Microsoft Network to reproduce this work for $1000. Unauthorized reproduction by Microsoft Network constitutes agreement to these terms. Please report violations to m@bang.org and postmaster@microsoft.com. From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:54 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5ti408$oct$17@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California M Carling wrote: >Thomas Holland wrote: >> jimcam@arctic.ca wrote: >> >> > With 3 hours ETOPS you can take a 767 anywhere >> > through the Arctic. >> >> Unless some airports are unavailable due to weather (not unlikely). > >Exactly. The questions are: 1) how many days each year will enough suitable >airports be available to permit crossing the Arctic without unacceptable >detours, and 2) given however many days per year that is, can a carrier make >money on the route, given the cost of an added stop on the days when bad >weather requires it. This is quite speculative, and there is plenty of room >for disagreement. It's only speculative in the absence of the facts, which shouldn't be *that* difficult to obtain. Given the number of days per year, you can calculate the rest. An early paper on ETOPS (V. W. Attwooll, "The Extended Range Operation of Twin-Engined Public Transport Aircraft," Journal of Navigation, vol. 38 no. 3, pp. 423-430, 1985) goes through this exact exercise with the North Atlantic. In that paper, they also talk about the future availability of the alternates: One obvious requirement of an alternate airport is that it shall not be low weather minima when it is needed. As shown above, the planned route must be decided on the assumption of the availability of certain alternates. Alternates nominated at the flight planning stage must have a high degree of expectation of being open if required. One proposed method of achieving this is to require that the forecase weather at nominated alternates shall equal or exceed that required for single-engined landing multiplied by a suitable factor. This factor is intended to allow for deterioration and forecase error over the interval of a 3 to 7 hours between the flight planning time and the time the alternate might actually be needed. In ICAO studies the factor was taken as three. This rule has implications for the economics of operation (frequency of flight cancellations). These are discussed below. The paper then goes on to include the following tables: Table 3. Frequency (%) of airfield conditions falling below required minima, including factor ----- factor ----- 1.5 2.0 3.0 Keflavik 3 5 10 Sondrestrom 5 8 13 Narssarssuaq 39 50 >50 Table 4. Frequency (%) of flight cancellations due to the unavailability of alternates Essential ----- factor ----- Rule-Time Alternates 1.5 2.0 3.0 60 minutes Prestwick, Keflavik, 30 40 53 Sondrestrom, Frobisher, Goose 90 minutes Keflavik 8 13 22 120 minutes Keflavik 3 5 10 (The paper further notes that Reykjavik and Akureyri airports, while not as suitable, could substitute for Keflavik in a pinch, and that Akureyri has substantially different weather patterns.) The same analysis can be done for the various Arctic routes. There didn't seem to be much speculation or room for disagreement in 1985, so I don't see why there should be now except for the frequency of airport unavailability. Your entire premise seems to be that the various Russian airports are unavailable *far* more often than Sondre Stromfjord (which I'd expect to have pretty nasty weather at times). Absent any facts to substantiate that, I find the argument singularly unpersuasive. -- 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 Aug 27 03:57:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:55 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : FAI Fairbanks, Alaska, US : CYRB Resolute Bay, Northwest Territories, Canada : BGTL Thule Air Base, Greenland : ENVA Trondheim, Norway : LED St. Petersburg, Russia : MMK Murmansk, Russia : OVB/UNNN Novosibirsk, Russia : GDX/UHMM Magadan, Russia : Hopefully we can agree that Fairbanks is viable. Others have noted : Resolute Bay as a viable alternate; it's nearly redundant with Thule, : which UA lists as an emergency airport and which reportedly has more : than adequate facilities. Trondheim is already used by UA as an ETOPS : alternate. : Moving into Russia, St. Petersburg, Murmansk, Novosibirsk, and Magadan A glance at the map (_not an airnavigation one) also yields Archangelsk, Vorkuta and Norilsk, the arctic nickel-mining centre. Archangelsk was featured in a recent Airbus ad in The Economist, for a Chicago to Bombay flight. The A340 would fly this non-stop. (Of course the A340 is not subject to ETOPS). If Norilsk does not receive Il-86s now, it has done in the past. Vorkuta is a bleak Soviet-era coal mining town. : all receive regular scheduled service. I assume, perhaps erroneously, : that if it's reasonable to plan to fly to an airport, it's reasonable : to use it as an alternate. St. Petersburg and Magadan both receive : scheduled jet service by Western carriers throughout the year (e.g., ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think this criterion is overly narrow. : While some Arctic ETOPS routes appear to be at best dicey until one : or more Russian airports on the Arctic Coast are improved, assuming : they aren't already adequate, it seems to me that many polar routes : are quite doable under ETOPS rules. If faster cruise speeds imply It seems the gradual opening up of Russian airports is a matter of politics and especially economics. Anyway more openness is to be expected. The Russians may also allow remaining Air Force bases to be used as diversion airports. Active bases need less specialised equipment to deal with airliner emergencies. -- Filip De Vos I fart in the general direction of anthropic principles... :-) FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be -- Michael L. Siemon -- From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:55 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5ti408$oct$17@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Thomas Holland wrote: > If you mean Condor, the german charter carrier, then no, CYRB is not > on our list of authorized airports. And I don't think that you can > land a large Airliner on a gravel strip without significant damage > (especially to the engines). When I was at YRB, the owner of one of the hotels told me that they one had a 747 land there because of problems. (Big business for both hotels at YRB - they are equipped to handle a fair amount of folks because of visits by military troups jnow and then). Remember that YRB's runways are dust-free most of the year due to that white stuff. Also, they do have a fairly large concrete slab area where the planes start their engines and warm them up. Also, I am not sure if this is "documented in the rules", but due to the rather low temperatures at Resolute Bay, I suspect that runway length requirements would be much lesser than for an airport where temps do get pretty hot in the summer. From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:55 From: ergos Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Reply-To: ergos@pacbell.net Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > > In article Mark Drela, > drela@mit.edu writes: > > propulsive_power / fuel_heating_rate > > Yes -- and here is a paradox. Since propulsive_power is proportional > to velocity, and velocity is basically unlimited (i.e. I can define a > reference frame in which the aircraft is moving near the speed of > light), > the efficiency can be greater than 100%! It took me a long time to > figure out the solution to this paradox. I will wait a bit before > posting it, so the readers can have the fun of figuring it out. A guy did it before you. His name is Einstein. He determined that it would take more energy - an infinity - to move near the speed of light; that's if your mass is not zero, of course... In other terms you cannot simply apply Newtonian mechanism in a Gallilean referential moving at the speed of light... There is a much better rationale at a much lower speed... Propulsive power is proportional to velocity as long as the force (thrust) does not change. I am afraid that would hardly be the case close or at Mach speeds... Ergos From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:55 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Teleport In article , gordow@cts.com says... > >.,.. could anyone explain the >mathematical relationship of thrust(rocket or jet) and horsepower. >More precisely, how does one convert from one to the other.... By this time, you will have seen the profusion of responses. No one quite fingered the root of the difficulty, which is this: pure jets produce (somewhat) constant thrust BUT prop engines produce (somewhat) constant horse power. This has the rather strange consequence that a prop plane produces progressively LESS thrust force with increasing speed, BUT pure jets produce progressively MORE horse power with increasing speed. The root of these striking differences lies in the fact that the propeller couples the engine power quite well to an accelerated column of air a little faster than the airspeed so that not too much energy is wasted in useless stirring of the airmass. In contrast, at slow speeds, the narrow high speed column of jet efflux is doing a lot of no good! Perhaps this note will flesh out the bare bones answer you have been given; that for any vehicle, the force acting in the direction of motion times the speed of the vehicle is numerically equal to propulsion power if you choose compatible units. brian whatcott Altus OK From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:55 From: onat@turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Onat Ahmet) Subject: Why are all airliners white? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kyoto University, JAPAN Is there a reason why airliners are dominantly painted in white, or is it simply that white paint is cheaper?!! Thanks. | Ahmet ONAT Kyoto Univ. Japan | | E-mail : onat@kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp | | WWW page : http://turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp/staff/onat.html | | My 6 leg walker, RC airplanes & more in home page | Land mines kill civilians in peacetime! Support total ban. From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:55 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Why are all airliners white? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Is there a reason why airliners are dominantly painted in white, >or is it simply that white paint is cheaper?!! While many airliners are painted white, it's hardly true that they *all* are. Northwest's have relatively little white, and United's are almost entirely dark blue and grey, while American's have no paint at all. (Well, most of American's planes. Some of the A300-600Rs may still be painted grey, though in time all of them will be bare metal.) The reason why most airliners are predominantly white is mostly because darker colors absorb more heat, meaning more work must be done by the air conditioning systems while sitting on the ground on a hot, sunny day. (At cruise altitudes, the outside air is plenty cold.) As a side benefit, the mostly white schemes are easier to see, so there is a safety factor, though the existence of many non-white schemes suggests this is not a significant consideration. -- 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 Aug 27 03:57:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:55 From: "M. Yan Chin" Subject: Airliner Windows Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Is there a technical reason why all airliners seem to have the same small windows? Larger ones seem like such an obvious thing to do to enhance passenger comfort. Thanks Ed Leo From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:55 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: 727 cooper vanes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I recently talked to a mechanic at work and the subject of the Cooper Vane on the 727 aft airstairs came up. He said this has develop after the DP Cooper Hijacking. Well my question is was this a Sevice Bullatin or was this just something that some 727 operators refitted their aircraft with. My company has two former Korean Air 727-200's and one 727-100 and none of these have a Cooper vane fitted on them or is this a old mechanics folk lore. Thanks David From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:55 From: "Stefano P. Pagiola" Subject: Dornier 328JET (Was Re: United: Unidentified Plane) References: <01bcae94$946a0460$3c92edcc@default> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "ITRADE" wrote: > Speaking of aircraft with over the wing jet engines, has there been any > bites on the Dornier 328-Jet? By "bites" do you mean orders? If so, the answer is yes, there have been 10 orders so far: Aspen Mountain Air has placed an order for four 328JETs (plus four options), while French Regional carrier Proteus Airlines has signed a purchase contract for six aircraft. (Of course, you know that the 328JET has its engines UNDER the wing, right?) Stefano -- All opinions are my own. Check out my web site (under construction) at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/ From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.ifr,eunet.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:55 From: Bill Wright Subject: Re: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ESInet - Charlottesville, VA Marcus Westermark wrote: > Snip > Being a newcomer to this group, must I strongly disapprove such > underestimation's and stereotyping of Russian pilots and aviation! Me too! (or any other group) I believe that all airlines and large pilot groups develop a "style" of flying and flying "culture" that all new pilots start to learn and accept from their first day on the job with the group. After many years of acculturation it is very hard to change these old habits and adapt to new routes, styles and flying conditions. There were many unexplained and misunderstood operational problems in the cockpits of United Airlines in the late 1980's which I think were due primarily to the fact that UAL had brought on board a group of PAA pilots along with the purchase of the PAA Pacific routes. When the two pilot lists were merged and UAL's domestic and its new "international" routes started to be crewed by pilots without long backgrounds in that type of flying, several serious incidents occured which seemed "inexplicable" to piulots from the other group. Each group seemed to believe that all pilots should fit into their own little niche of flying automatically. Bill Wright From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.ifr,eunet.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:56 From: w6uv@wco.com (Jerry Gardner) Subject: Re: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Spacely's Sprockets >> I've tried talking to them, but they're only interested in what they >> can bring home for free. Like worn-out car tyres, food and live >> chickens. :-) Don't forget cows! A Russian air crew recently pilfered a cow grazing near an airfield. Said cow got rather antsy during the flight causing the crew to through the cow out of the plane. The cow struck a Japanese fishing boat and sank it. The japanese crew was held in jail for a few days because no one would believe their story until the Russian Consulate confirmed it. -- Jerry Gardner, W6UV | Bill Clinton has all the steely resolve of (w6uv at wco dot com) | a kamikaze pilot on his 37th mission. From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.ifr,eunet.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:56 From: "JCSFlyboy" Subject: Re: Why Russians airlines usually make no-ILS approach/landings? References: <33B65BD6.5FDC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM ZineGreen wrote in article ... > There is some merit to the language problem, but it is ridiculous to say > they clear the taxiways when Aeroflot flights arrives. This is nonsense - > I've been in the traffic mix many many times with Aeroflot flights into > JFK and ORD. (I've even flown on Aeroflot.) The language problem has as > much to do with ATC controllers with attitudes as much as it does foreign > pilots who don't speak good English. They fly into our country, and we > fly into theirs: let's be realistic about communicating. Controllers > often rattle of instructions so fast even I can't understand them. What > do they expect? Let's treat the foreign carriers with a little respect. Okay. If Russian airline pilots are so well trained, why is the majority of crashes (unscheduled descents) in by Russian airlines caused by weight and balance discrepencies? They load the airplane with people like it's a city bus (people standing in the isles, etc.) Looking forward to your response. Please respond to "the group". From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:56 From: Cyril LUTRAN <101353.3264@CompuServe.COM> Subject: ATR crash at florence, Italy Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) An Air Littoral (a french, Montpellier-based, regional company) ATR 42-500 overran the runway of LIRQ Florence, Italy airfield, last 01AUG, with 8 people slightly injured and the captain severly injured at the head. He died a week later, at Marseilles' hospital, France. There were two training captains in the cockpit, the LH pilot was PIC, PF and tested by the RH pilot, company examinor. Good weather, wind velocity below 5 knots, the runway 23 was in use (1600m length). Because they were training, they elected to land on runway 05. The circle-to-land manoeuvre is difficult due to the mountain vicinity and also because there is a displaced threshold on RWY 05, with a shorter usable length of 1000m. Perhaps they approached too high and fast on the final leg. They touched down at almost 300m away from the threshold and, according to the passengers' testimony, there was almost no breaking action. The aircraft overran the runway, has been stopped by a ditch alongside a high density traffic motorway. No car collided. Passengers and stewardess were rapidly evacuated by the rear -- From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:56 From: Antoin Daltun Subject: Re: Aer Lingus signs for A321s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:22 18/08/97, you wrote: >Niels Sampath wrote: >> >> Aer Lingus has signed for 4x A321s. >> 2 in 1998 and 2 in 1999. >> To operate the Dublin-LHR service. >> Like the British Midland A320/321 deal this is somewhat surprising >> since both are strong 737 operators. >> This may have been the deal Boeing was once looking for to develop >> the 737-900 (along with a Chinese airline). >> Haven't heard about the -900 recently tho. > >This doesn't surprise me too much as Aer Lingus have been absolutely >delighted with their A330's. I wonder though how much EU influence was >brought to bear? Why should EU influence be assumed? Boeing have an aircraft (B757) in the size category and a project (B737-900). The aircraft has much longer range than Aer Lingus needs in Europe and is much heavier and therefore more expensive to operate than the A321, for almost the same capacity. There are very few B757 scheduled airline customers in Europe, only: BA who introduced it to service in 1983, before the A320 had flown, so long ago that it would not be too surprising if they were looking for replacements for their older aircraft fairly soon! Finnair who need the range for charter services Iberia Icelandair who probably need the range on N Atlantic services and charters to Southern Europe & Africa. Transaero The A321 has sold better to Euroepan scheduled airlines, including Swissair (non-EU), as well as Air France, Alitalia, British Midland, Lufthansa. The B757 has sold better to charter airlines which need the range. It has also built up a much better customer base in North America, partly due to an earlier start and partly due to range. The B757 would really only fit Aer Lingus if it wanted to operate a narrow body on the North Atlantic and this does not seem to be in the current plans with the A330 offering low cost per available seat-km plus much better cargo capability than a narrow body. The B737-900 is still a project. Even with an early decision, entry to service is several years away. If it is launched, it may be attractive to airlines whose timescale it fits. In short, think "horses for courses" before assuming political pressures and conspiracies. Best regards Antoin Daltun ts passenger capacity will probably be limited by the number of exits From kls Wed Aug 27 03:57:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 03:57:56 From: Ken.O-Riordan@ny.ubs.com Subject: Re: Aer Lingus signs for A321s References: <3.0.1.32.19970818153546.00c92494@mail1.tinet.ie> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="PUBLIC:" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In article , Antoin Daltun wrote:>Why should EU influence be assumed? Well in an ideal world aircraft would be bought for their attributes alone as you seem to indicate. Unfortunately we don't live in such a world. Before I continue, I'd like to say that I have no axe to grind one way or the other with regards to Airbus or Boeing. The simple fact of the matter is that European nations with interests in Airbus Industrie put considerable pressure on nations who receive other benefits from the EU. Read Matthew Lynn's excellent 'Bird's of Prey' for the goings on between Airbus and Boeing to win orders and how they roll out the political big Whig's for these occasions. Boeing are just as bad. Now Aer Lingus being a state controlled company is certainly not free of such political considerations. The same is true of most of the other European airlines by the way. Your arguments about BA don't make sense. They operate around 10 A320's and have done so for many years now, these having come as part of the British Caledonian merger. BA while happy with these aircraft have not bought any more. They do however continue to buy B757's. Now do you think that an airline with such an aggressive cost cutting basis as BA, which incidentally was willing to allow a disruptive strike recently on this issue, would really operate aircraft that are no longer efficient, such as the B757, on its European routes? I think not. I have no doubt that the A321 is an excellent aircraft and will serve Aer Lingus well, but I don't think it's any better or any worse than a B757. There is a bigger picture. Regards, Ken. From news Thu Aug 21 14:25:40 1997 Path: ditka!daver!newsgate.tandem.com!su-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!col-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu (Peter Hollingsworth) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting Date: 21 Aug 1997 15:13:36 -0400 Organization: The Grandscale Earthly Destructor Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5ti41a$oct$18@kragar.kei.com> References: In article , zinegreen@aol.com (ZineGreen) wrote: > I've never heard of an airline asking its crews to shut of logo lights to > save money. First of all, the money saved would be infinitesimal. But > more importantly, crews are normally too safety conscious to stand for > such a mandate had it come from the airline's management. I've been an > airline pilot with 3 airlines in the US, and I've never encountered an > airline asking its crews to skimp on any such matter that would affect > safety of flight. Actually alot do. Delta doesn't install logo lights on its domestic a/c for cost puposes. Logo lights are also very expensive and las only about 100 hours of use. While compared to pilots, mechanics time is cheep, it still is expesive and trhe change of lights can take quite a while, especially if they are in a hard to access place, e.g. on top of the horizontal stab. -- Peter Hollingsworth The Grand Scale Earthly Destructor E-Mail:gt1208a@prism.gatech.edu WWW: http://petex.gt.ed.net From news Thu Aug 21 14:25:40 1997 Path: ditka!daver!netnews.com!europa.clark.net!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "jla" Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting Date: 21 Aug 1997 15:19:22 -0400 Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5ti4c3$oct$24@kragar.kei.com> References: Mike wrote in article ... > In article , > caribb@promobility.net says... > >The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an interesting article > >concerning the aircraft visability while taxing on airport tarmacs. In > >effect it talked about how airplanes have not got a standardised > >lighting system to clearly identify what type of plane they are and what > >they are doing. Control towers operators have trouble actually > >physically spotting planes on the ground at night and airlines are > >making it even harder by turining off their "logo lights" on their tails > >in order to save money. Futhermore smaller planes have even less > >lighting than the larger ones. All this contributes to possible danger > >when trying to coordinate where they are going and who sees each other. > >Anyone from North America or Europe have any insight on this? > Interesting since in this news group maybe a year or so ago somebody > made the comment that United planes are difficult to spot _during the > day_. Apperently the blue/gray blends into the tarmac well. There have been several accidents at UA with equipment hitting the aircraft at night. The paint job is so dark, with the midnight blue and grey, that it is hard to see at night and judge how close or far away one is. Supposedly the grey has been lightened somewhat. The remaining remnant from the Wolf regime. Can anyone think of a way to convince them to pay another firm several million to come up with an equally unattractive (and oh so like everyone else's) scheme that is not so hazardous to people and equipment??? -- jla From news Thu Aug 21 14:25:40 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in5.uu.net!munnari.OZ.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.Hawaii.Edu!news.caldera.com!enews.sgi.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: Thomas Holland Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific Date: 21 Aug 1997 15:13:03 -0400 Organization: I'm not organized at all! Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5ti408$oct$17@kragar.kei.com> References: <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> jimcam@arctic.ca wrote: > According to my friends at Air Canada ( a B767 operator) you need 6000 > feet of hard surface for an ETOPS alternate. The Arctic airports which > meet this criteria are CYFB, CYRT, CYYQ, CYZF and CYEV. I understand > that Condor uses CYRB which is 6400 Gravel. If you mean Condor, the german charter carrier, then no, CYRB is not on our list of authorized airports. And I don't think that you can land a large Airliner on a gravel strip without significant damage (especially to the engines). There are some more restrictions on selcting an ETOPS alternate but with a 1200 NM range (180min * 400kts) there should be enough real Airports available in the artic. > With 3 hours ETOPS you can take a 767 anywhere > through the Arctic. Unless some airports are unavailable due to weather (not unlikely). /Thomas/ -- Thomas Holland, innot@frankfurt.netsurf.de From news Tue Aug 26 16:32:57 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.cerf.net!nntp3.cerf.net!vncnews!newsfeed2.vnc.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: rma@visi.com (Rich Ahrens) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific Date: 26 Aug 1997 14:08:17 -0400 Organization: Who needs it? Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5tv62r$5nu$12@kragar.kei.com> References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> Mary Shafer (shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) spilled onto his/her news spool: : I've been to Barrow. That's Wiley Post International (I think) : Airport. Post and Rogers took off from there on their last flight. I don't believe that is correct. They departed Fairbanks and were looking for Barrow in fog, if I recall. After a brief stop somewhere along the shore, they took back off and crashed in a lagoon. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ | |rma@visi.com |----------------------------------------------| |"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?"| ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Aug 27 20:47:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 20:47:04 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: Anniversary Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Not strictly airliners, but, according to my newspaper, today, 27 August, is the anniversary of the first flight by a jet powered aircraft. In 1939 the Heinkel HE-178 made its maiden flight. Regards Alex. This message does not constitute official EUROCONTROL correspondence. The Organisation is not responsible for its contents or the consequences of its use, nor for inaccurate transmission or misdirection. From kls Wed Aug 27 20:47:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 20:47:05 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Aer Lingus signs for A321s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Antoin Daltun wrote: > The B737-900 is still a project. Even with an early decision, entry to > service is several years away. If it is launched, it may be attractive to > airlines whose timescale it fits. The -900 was approved by Boeing directors in June and would be stretched to carry 18 more passengers than the upcoming 737-800 and give airlines the option of adding more seats on basic routes. According to Boeing,if advance sales go well, the -900 could be launched before the end of the year and be ready for delivery in about two years. ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Wed Aug 27 20:47:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 20:47:05 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Aer Lingus signs for A321s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote:>The -900 was approved by Boeing directors in June ... By "approved" I assume you mean that the board authorized the Boeing sales force to present the proposal to customers, though I can find nothing to support even that. >According to Boeing, if advance sales go well, the -900 could be launched >before the end of the year and be ready for delivery in about two years. Right, the 737-900 has NOT been approved in the usual sense of launching the production of it. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Aug 27 20:47:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 20:47:05 From: Graeme Cant Subject: Re: Fed Ex MD-11 crash was mechanical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net Peter Mchugh wrote: > > >Current published reports in Aviation Week report that the decent rate > >was 500fpm, and the initial landing impact was 1.7G, the aircraft bounced, > >and the second impact was at 1.69G. Sounds to me like a very hard landing. > > 500 fpm is a hard landing????????????? No Peter, 1.7G is a hard landing. 500fpm is a normal to low descent rate for approach but a number of pilots like to attempt to break that rate down just before the aeroplane touches. It's a technique called 'flaring' and it's very popular with passengers and pilots because of the smooth results - although achieving it consistently can be a bit tricky. Maintaining 500fpm (8.3 ft/sec) to touchdown is not widely practised because it's getting up near the design limit and after a few landings at that vertical rate the gear struts start to protrude through the upper wing surface and spoil the aerodynamics. Graeme Cant From kls Wed Aug 27 20:47:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 20:47:05 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com I read this very surprising news : (Reuters) Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd is planning to order 20 additional Airbus and BOEING CO wide-body aircraft as part of a large scale expansion of its international operations, the latest edition of aviation industry magazine Flight International said. A Cathay spokesman said the carrier had no announcement to make and could not comment on the report. Flight said Cathay is understood to be negotiating orders for a further seven Boeing 747-400s including one freighter; seven more Airbus A340-300s and another six A330-300s. (end item) If this information is correct it would mean that Cathay isn't interested in the A340-600. I just don't see why they would buy 6 new B747-400 (not considering the freighter) if a A340-600 can nearly do everything better. Maybe the delivery has to be before the -600 will enter service. No mention is made of the A340-500 or the B77-400 (or 200x). Any comments are welcome, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Wed Aug 27 20:47:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 27 Aug 97 20:47:05 From: Jordi Carrera Subject: Autothrottle systems Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: J.Carrera's Reply-To: carrera@mx2.redestb.es Hi, I'm looking for information concerning autothrottle systems. The items I need are: Block diagram, operation procedures, modes, limitations and restrictions. Any pointing will be good received. Thanks to all From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:37 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: B777-400 and A340-500HGW Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com I just read this interesting news in the web edition of AW&ST : << AW&ST Boeing may have grabbed the lead in satisfying Singapore Airlines' performance criteria for an 8,800-naut.-mi. transport to provide nonstop services between Los Angeles and Singapore. SIA's requirement is for a 206-passenger aircraft with normal fuel reserves, which Boeing can meet with a version industry sources are calling the 777-400, a 777-200X with an auxiliary fuel tank in the belly. Airbus has countered with a 365-ton, high-growth version of the A340-500. It would be certified with 53,000-lb.-thrust Rolls Royce Trent 500s but would be able to take up to a 60,000-lb.-thrust growth version of the engine. Boeing's proposal is based on the Trent 8104 with 102,000-lb. thrust. Malaysia Airlines has placed a letter of intent for 15 777-400s. On the other hand, Cathay Pacific, interested in a 7,600-naut.-mi., extra-long-haul capacity to serve flights from its Hong Kong base to Toronto or New York, is looking at the larger 382-seat capacity of the A340-600. >> As you can see the Airbus - Boeing battle is getting very tough. The 8800 nmi for the -400 are lower than what was announced last Sunday in the Seattle Times (10000 nmi), but they seem much more realistic. The A340-500HGW at 365 t will be a huge jump from todays 271 t for the A340-300E, which will also explain the 2.5 B$ development costs. It will get very close to the B747-400 at 397 t. I think that both the B777-400 and A340-500/600 will be officially launched before the end of the year. The Asian air show (in Singapore ?) should be appropriate. Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines going for the -400 and Cathay Pacific for the -600. Cathay always put a lot of importance on the 'safer aspect' of 4 jet-engines, but nevertheless operates B777. It would not be surprising if Singapore Airlines would choose a mix of A340-500 and B777-400, they are already operating both types. Airbus and Boeing should get each at least 40 orders before the end of the year, which with the existing LOI from Malaysian, Virgin and Air Canada shouldn't be difficult. Regards, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:38 From: iceboy@arcticmail.com (igloo) Subject: A310 crash - details wanted Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Finding it difficult to locate substantive details on the loss of an A310-304 hull belonging to Russian International Airways, all I can locate is the following: 22 March 1994; Russian International Airways A310; near Novokuznetsk, Russia: Lost control and crashed after the captain had allowed at least one child to manipulate the flight controls. All 12 crew and 63 passengers were killed Anybody give me pointers to further info? I have been led to believe that a child disengaged the autopilot, and that at the time *both* members of the crewwere not in the cockpit. I find this unbelievable. From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:38 From: peter neville gurnell Subject: Re: differents in DC10-30 and -40 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc. > There is a photo of a National DC-10-30 at LAX without the center gear > extended in the new book "Airliners at LAX". LAX is also hot, but not > high, so National must have had some sort of policy about the center > gear (or a National crew liked to do it sometimes!). I just spent the last five years as an oiler on the 10-30 and I believe that our SOP's were pretty close to what the Douglas Legal dept. requires. I know the Normal checklists are a bit home grown but the Non-Normals are straight Douglas (still evolving). The only time that we were called to isolate the centre gear was on a two-inop approach OR (I think) when there was a maingear problem which would result in a gear & pod landing. Memory is a bit fuzzy as I have had a memory dump on most of that stuff since moving back to a pilots aircraft from an engineers aircraft. We did have a max landing weight with the centre gear up (I forget, no probably never knew, what it was) but it doesn't make too much sense to put the increased load on the main gear tires as the centre gear does take quite a bit of the load. We couldn't put chocks on it while loading or fueling as it "walks" as the airframe gets heavier. Just adding to the confusion, Peter From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:38 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:38 From: "matt weber" Subject: Cathay to re-engine all 747-400's in fleet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Flight International reports in the current edition that Cathay Pacific will update all 21 747-400's to the updated RR RB211-524 G/H-T, this is Trent 700 hybrid. The updated engine is reported as having a 2% SFC advantage, and larger TGT margins as well as being 365kg (about 800 pounds) lighter. In addition Cathay apparently has 8 spare engines that will also be upgraded. It has been no secret for some time that many airlines have been unhappy with fuel economy and reliability of the RB211-524G/H engine. "The existing engine has not retained performance as much as we would have liked" said Derek Cridland, Deputy Engineering Director at Cathay. The hybrid is an RB211-524G/H engine with a Trent 700 high pressure turbine, Combustor and compressor. These parts can apparently be fitted to the existing 524G/H engines during major overhaul. While it was reported that Cathay will be re-engining the entire fleet, the article makes it clear that the new components will simply be fitted to the existing engines. Neither RR or Cathay are willing to talk about how much money is involved in the deal. From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:39 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Information needed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Marc Guimond wrote: > I was just recently told by uncertain sources that airplanes in the Boeing > 747-400 family where able to fly inverted. I would like to know if it is > truely possible both theoretically and practically for such a massive craft > to do so. >From the pure aerodynamics / physics perspective, any aircraft can fly inverted. There are two maneuvers which will do this. One is a loop, the other is a barrel roll. In both cases, the aircraft is pulling positive g's through the entire maneuver, so it couldn't care less which way is "up", unless the maneuver is radical enough to overstress the airframe. If you are talking about *sustained* inverted flight, I doubt most transport aircraft are capable of this. All the blue water would pour out of the toilets! ;-) There have been instances where commercial transports have been upside down. The original Boeing 367-80 prototype was intentionally rolled by the test pilot over Lake Washington. There is a famous painting of this. Inadvertent incidents include a China Air 747 that had a high-speed upset over the Pacific and rolled inverted. The crew was able to recover by extending the landing gear. Recovery was at a frighteningly low altitude, and they shed a lot of parts such as gear doors. Another was a China Eastern MD-11 over the Aleutians, and IIRC, a 707 of NW that did a loop after an autopilot failure. Legally, FAA regulations consider inverted flight as "aerobatic flight". Since airliners are certified to the Transport Category, and not the Aerobatic Category, they cannot legally be flown inverted. Ken Ishiguro From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:39 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Information needed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Marc Guimond writes >I was just recently told by uncertain sources that airplanes in the Boeing >747-400 family where able to fly inverted. I would like to know if it is >truely possible both theoretically and practically for such a massive craft >to do so. If you can prove that such a maneuver is indeed possible (or >though to be possible), or if it has already been done, I would like to >know. Nyet - this plane has oil and fuel feeds that depend on gravity, without even looking at the stressing of the airframe. -- john r. From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:39 From: 187 Subject: Re: Information needed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=big5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Subscriber, Pacific Internet, Singapore Reply-To: lowwol@pacific.net.sg Marc Guimond wrote: > I was just recently told by uncertain sources that airplanes in the Boeing > 747-400 family where able to fly inverted. I would like to know if it is > truely possible both theoretically and practically for such a massive craft > to do so. If you can prove that such a maneuver is indeed possible (or > though to be possible), or if it has already been done, I would like to > know. i THINK, with the current design, it is not possible. firstly, the wings are built such that the upper is curved while the lower portion is flat. this results in differential pressure exerted whereby upper has got lower pressure than lower and hence the lift. secondly, with the hump at the top, ie the upper deck, it is difficult to fly inverted at the current design. also, i do not think it possible to fly the plane inverted with engines at the top, rather than at the bottom. btw, anyone thinks that it is still possible to fly upright with the engines at the top instead of below the wings? rgds. From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:39 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Information needed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California In article , 187 wrote:>Marc Guimond wrote: >> I was just recently told by uncertain sources that airplanes in the Boeing >> 747-400 family where able to fly inverted. I would like to know if it is >> truely possible both theoretically and practically for such a massive craft >> to do so. >secondly, with the hump at the top, ie the upper deck, it is difficult >to fly inverted at the current design. Why would you think the hump would have any bearing on the matter? >also, i do not think it possible to fly the plane inverted with engines >at the top, rather than at the bottom. btw, anyone thinks that it is >still possible to fly upright with the engines at the top instead of >below the wings? If you mean to suggest that there's some inherent problem with having the engines above the wing during level flight, the VFW 614 provides an example of such a design -- it had two jets mounted on pylons above the wing. It wasn't terribly successful, but it did fly. The Boeing YC-14 is another aircraft with jets mounted (mostly) above the wing. Without restricting oneself to jets, there are plenty of aircraft with wing-mounted engines that are above the wing. The Lockheed Electra, Convair 580, and BAe (Hawker-Siddely) 748 come immediately to mind. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:39 From: richard Subject: Re: $%#% news media! (UA 737 engine failure in Portland, Or) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote: > >The 737-200 did not have fuel dump capabilities because its MGTOW and MLW > >were very close. I can't speak for the big fan versions, but I suspect they > >are the same. > > The weights appear to be close enough for the 2nd generation 737s, > too, so I'd guess they also have no need for fuel dump. I couldn't > find MLW for the 3rd generation 737s. > > ---- basic ---- --- heaviest -- > MGTOW MLW MGTOW MLW > 737-300 124,500 114,000 140,000 116,600 > 737-400 139,000 121,000 150,500 124,000 > 737-500 116,000 110,000 134,000 110,000 Part 25 which is the regulation by which all aircraft over 12,500 pounds are required to be certified by only requires fuel dumping capacity if the MGTOW is more tha 105% of MLW. But waivers can be optained if it can be proved to the satisfaction of the certify body that safety is not compromised. From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:39 From: "JCSFlyboy" Subject: Re: $%#% news media! (UA 737 engine failure in Portland, Or) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > There is still money to be made and places people need to > get to in a hurry. People will fly no matter what what awnsers are > presented to them. So mabey I am worried about nothing. I agree sir. As an example, people still fly ValueJet. I'm a major airline employee and me and everyone I know at work, would not fly ourselves nor our relatives on ValueJet (or for that matter, the majority of all these 'startup' carriers). From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:40 From: gerwocii@aol.com (GERWOCII) Subject: Re: $%#% news media! (UA 737 engine failure in Portland, Or) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Wayne Dohnal wrote: >> A United 737 lost an engine on departure from Portland, Or. Friday morning >> and returned with an uneventful landing. The first report I heard on the >> local news said that they dumped fuel before landing. I didn't think the >> 737 could dump fuel. Can it? And it was only on a 600 mile flight (to >> SFO), so I wouldn't think they'd have full fuel anyway. >> >> Later in the afternoon the news report said "they switched over to the >> other engine and landed safely". Makes me wonder what the general public >> thinks after hearing this jibberish. Does the media ever get it right? Another srory on the media disinformation front in relation to aviation. Actually this one isnt that serious but once again it demonstrates the medias quest to get it wrong when it comes to aviation. Im sorry im probally painting with a rather large brush. There was a picture on the cover of the Chicago Tribune yesterday from the Air and Water show over the weekend. The picture was a rather patriotic picture of a small boy watching a AH-64 manuver over North Ave. Beach. The caption read something like. "A boy watches a helocopter from the Vietnam war preform manuvers over the beach" Once again the picture was an AH-64. I know this is picky but it bothers me. GERWOC Uh Oh Here comes a flock of WHAAA WHAAA's!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Joe Walsh From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:40 From: cassa@world.net Subject: Re: DC9-15 (was Re: Northwest A319 will replace what ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service On 17 Aug 97 15:41:10 , richard wrote: > Edward Hahn wrote: > > In article , Mike wrote: > > >NW operates -10, -30, -40, -50 and -80s. I've never heard of a -15 before, > > >prehaps it is a variant of the -10? Note there are also no -20s. If > > >Republic did operate them then I can't say where they went. > > > > Among the differences between a -10 and a -15 version of the DC9, is, (from > > what I recall) the additional of leading edge slats to the wing. > > The -15 is really a variant of the -10 manufactured upon an airline > request. The -20 was a special version. To my knowledge only SAS bought > them. Presently SAS has sold them. They had -10 Fuselage, -30 wings and > -50 engines. I have heard they a hotrod. Succint details of the DC9-15 & 20 variants are given in the International Directory of Civil Aircraft 1997/98 published by Aerospace Publications in Australia (ISBN 1 875671 26 9). "The DC-9-20 featured the DC-9-10's fuselage with the -30's more powerful engines and longer span wings, giving better hot and high performance. The DC-9-15 was basically a -10 but with more fuel and higher weights." "976 DC-9s of all models (were) built including 137 -10s, 10 -20s and 662 -30s including military C-9s." Hope that this is of assistance. Cass Alexander -- Posted using Reference.COM http://www.reference.com Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog. InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting. From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:40 From: Jack Raithel Subject: DC-9 series 10 and 15 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: T-Net Reply-To: jraithel@netten.net I've seen several questions in regards to the DC-9 and it's various configurations. I've been flying the DC-9 for the last 20 years (Hughes Airwest, Republic and Northwest) and thought I could clear up a couple of things. First of all, the -10 and -15 are both considered series 10 aircraft. Therefore, they have the same fuselage, wings and gross weights. The only difference was the "original" powerplants. On the original aircraft, the -10 was powered by JT8D-5 engines and the -15 was powered by either -1's or -7's. Airwest and Republic had both -10's and -15F's. All of our -10 and -15 aircraft had been re-engined with -7 engines. The F series (freighter) had a large cargo door located on the left side of the fuselage. The series 20 aircraft was a -10 fuselage with -30 wings (leading edge slats) and had -9 powerplants. I believe someone said it had the -50 series engines (-17 powerplants), but that's not true. The pylons on the -10 fuselage couldn't handle that much power. There were approximately 20 series 20 aircraft built and all of them were sold to SAS. Jack From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:41 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-9 series 10 and 15 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >First of all, the -10 and -15 are both considered series 10 aircraft. >Therefore, they have the same fuselage, wings and gross weights. The DC-8-61, -62, and -63 are all series 60 DC-8s, but that does not imply they share the same fuselage, wings, or gross weights. They do not! >From what I can tell, the difference between the DC-9-14 and -15 is that the latter has uprated engines, allowing a higher gross weight. It's entirely possible that -14s have been upgraded to -15s, and it appears that Northwest has done so with their fleet, but that does not imply that *all* series 10 DC-9s have the same gross weight. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:41 From: cassa@world.net Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust in Air (was Trident/More Weirdness)) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service On 18 Aug 97 02:22:16 , gerwocii@aol.com (GERWOCII) wrote: > I belive the DC-8 is able to fly it's approach using reverse thrust. As a > matter of fact ive seen a picture of it. As an enroute controller at Melbourne Center (Australia) in the 70's, I can vividly remember Alitalia using reverse thrust for inbound speed control within 150 nm. of the airport. It was certainly interesting when aircraft which had to rely on speed brakes for Mach/IAS reduction were following behind the Alitalia DC8s at minimum longitudinal separation distances! As I recall, Alitalia were the only DC8 carriers which used this technique in Australian airsapce; to the best of my knowledge, Air New Zealand (the other major DC8 operator in the area) did not. I also recall that the technique was allegedly responsible for structural problems with main spars and/or pylons. Could someone in the know please confirm this. Regards, Cass Alexander -- Posted using Reference.COM http://www.reference.com Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog. InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting. From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:41 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust in Air (was Trident/More Weirdness)) 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) In smaller beasts, an ex-US Customs pilot told me of doing short field approaches in their King* Air. Basically, cross the threshold low and dirty, put both sides in reverse pitch and LAND, period. No less than Mary Shafer of NASA Drydan confirmed this but said the FOD was hard on the prop blades... I just gulped when he told me.... { * I always get royality confused, and it might have been a Queen Air, but I don't think so. Which did USCS fly? } -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:41 From: Tom Gibson Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust in Air (was Trident/More Weirdness)) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: San Diego State University GERWOCII wrote: > I belive the DC-8 is able to fly it's approach using reverse thrust. As a > matter of fact ive seen a picture of it. If you are talking about seeing a picture of a DC-8 with the rear of the nacelles slid back behind the the engines, you are seeing the engine silencer, not the reverser. The reverser was not very obvious; the silencers were VERY obvious, and I would predict led to a misunderstanding that DC-8's could use reverse thrust during landing (since this is when the silencers were extended). (Until recently, I thought it was for some kind of engine cooling, since I often saw the silencers extended while taxiing). The new DC-8 book describes the silencers, with pictures. Of course, I could be wrong, but this is my best guess how this idea started. Hope this helps. -- Tom Gibson Classic Airliner Page: http://members.aol.com/TGFltsim/ AlcoHauler Locomotive Page: http://members.aol.com/AlcoHauler/home/alcohaul.html From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:42 From: "Giovanni B. Magi" Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: magi@mail.tecnonet.it Also former Soviet civil aircraft YAK 40 can deploy thrust reverser (it has only in no.2 engine) on final. It is a normal procedure. Gianni From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:42 From: Peter & James Liddell <72132.1641@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: HS Trident/More wierdness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) The AC aircraft did not crash because of premature thrust reverser deployment. Here's what happend: The DC-8-50, comming infrom Calgary, was on final to Toronto, at about fifty feet the flaps are supposed to be extended from twenty to thirty two degrees, problem, on the DC-8-10 -> 50 to lower flaps you must push the handle FORWARDS, not pull it back like most aircraft. So when the Captain,flying , asked for more flaps for touchdown, the F/O pulled the lever back and RETRACTED THEM. The aircraft stalled at 42', droped like a rock, hit the runway, ripping off the #4 engine and 15' of the wing (Thus letting the fuel gush out). The captain, unaware of the damage to the wing, and the fire, pushed the throttles all the way up and pulled back off the runway and tried to go around, about three miles out the fuel caught fire and....Well the rest is history. Fifty six passengers and seven crew died. The accident was caused by flap retraction, not thrust reversers. -- Peter "Still all alone in the lonely land" Should Northern Ontario Be A Seperate Province??? From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:42 From: bengel@grobbebol.xs4all.nl Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Grobbebol's Home Reply-To: bengel@xs4all.nl In rec.travel.air ZineGreen wrote: > I've never heard of an airline asking its crews to shut of logo lights to > save money. First of all, the money saved would be infinitesimal. But > more importantly, crews are normally too safety conscious to stand for > such a mandate had it come from the airline's management. I've been an > airline pilot with 3 airlines in the US, and I've never encountered an > airline asking its crews to skimp on any such matter that would affect > safety of flight. my $100 question is : what would a logo light have to do with safety ? I know that logolights are well known for the dumb installation, the awful places to reach etc. I can think of a few reasons why the logo-lights off would save money for sure. You probably never have had the outboard logolights of a 767 failed because of the wiring bewteen tghe inner and outer light; the DC-11 (for others, the MD-11) also has a very 'nice' installation at the tail. The only ones that are really easy to reach were the ex-martinair logo-lights. because of the long name, two lights were installed in the wingtips of the DC-10's. however, the heat.... wiring damaged etc etc. yes I hate the logolights. -- Grobbebol's Home | Don't give in to spammers. http://www.xs4all.nl/~bengel | Use your real e-mail address Linux 2.0.30 on an i586/64 MB | on Usenet. From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:42 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > -Although I don't have data, ground collisions are pretty rare. A > Korean DC-10 / commuter at ANC, a TW(?) / private plane, the Tenerife > accident, a ground near-miss NW DC-10 / NW 747 at MSP, and a TW / NW a > few years ago in the Midwest were all in broad daylight. The USAir 737 > / Wings West accident at LAX was at night, but in an area not visible > from the control tower. Seems to me daylight ground collisions are more > common. A few years ago, after the USAir 737 / Wings West collision there was an article on one of the national news magazines, Dateline, or one of those. They had a guy who claimed the accident was caused by substandard lighting on one of the planes, and what is meant by that is that the lights were not as bright as regulations mandate. They showed him measuring the brightness of the marker lights on various aircraft at an airport, and it turns out that many of the planes, including those of major airlines, had marker lights that were not as bright as regulations require. Thomas A. Beckley From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:42 From: rjw@atc.dra.hmg.gb (Richard Weatherill) Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DRA Malvern, England k_ish wrote: >caribb wrote: >> The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an interesting article >> concerning the aircraft visability while taxing on airport tarmacs. In >> effect it talked about how airplanes have not got a standardised >> lighting system to clearly identify what type of plane they are and >> what they are doing. [snip] >IMHO, as a private pilot, this is journalistic sensationalism at its >best (worst?)! A few points: >- Road vehicles don't have a lighting system to clearly identify what >type of car they are. What would be the point? >- Major airports have ground radar which aids ground ops especially at >night and low-visibility. I certainly agree with the overall thrust of your response to caribb's posting and with most of the detailed points (which I've snipped), especially regarding the pilot's own situational awareness. Of course road vehicles don't have lights for identification purposes - but then for road traffic management the identity of a specific vehicle isn't usually important. The identity of an aircraft is, however, important when controlling a departure stream (for example) at a busy airport. Ground radars do help, but most surface movement radars (in Europe at least) are primary, so identity information is either completely missing from the controller's screen or present in a very rudimentary form, having been derived from other sources. At any rate, I'm sure it's still very useful for a Ground Movements Controller to be able to take a quick look out of the window to confirm from the fin markings that an aircraft at a particular position is the one (s)he expected to see there. Of course, all this may change before long with the advent of new technologies, such as ADS-B. Richard Weatherill From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:42 From: gerwocii@aol.com (GERWOCII) Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: <5ti4c3$oct$24@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >There have been several accidents at UA with equipment hitting the aircraft >at night. The paint job is so dark, with the midnight blue and grey, that >it is hard to see at night and judge how close or far away one is. >Supposedly the grey has been lightened somewhat. The remaining remnant >from the Wolf regime. Can anyone think of a way to convince them to pay >another firm several million to come up with an equally unattractive (and >oh so like everyone else's) scheme that is not so hazardous to people and >equipment??? Does UA use wingwalkers while reciving an aircraft at the gate? Do they clear the safety envelope before the aircraft arrives? Im not being rude. I am curious. These thing go a long way in preventing these kinds of accidents. GERWOC Uh Oh Here comes a flock of WHAAA WHAAA's!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Joe Walsh From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:43 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: <5ti41a$oct$18@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca re: LOGO lights during taxiing. Last year, I left JFK for a short hop to Montreal during the evening rush hour. This was about 1 weeks after the TWA800 mishap. I noticed that the TWA planes with the new paint had the tail lights on during the wait, but the older TWA planes had their tail lights off. From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:43 From: bwebbink@ugcs.caltech.edu (Bob Webbink) Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena k_ish writes: >Korean DC-10 / commuter at ANC, a TW(?) / private plane, the Tenerife >accident, a ground near-miss NW DC-10 / NW 747 at MSP, and a TW / NW a >few years ago in the Midwest were all in broad daylight. The USAir 737 >/ Wings West accident at LAX was at night, but in an area not visible >from the control tower. Seems to me daylight ground collisions are more Actually, the TWA ground collision a few years ago was at night, and the cessna which the TWA MD-80 hit was taxiing on the runway with its lights off.... -- Bob Webbink bwebbink@cco.caltech.edu California Institute of Technology bwebbink@ugcs.caltech.edu From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:43 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California In article , k_ish wrote: > the Tenerife accident ... were all in broad daylight. The Tenerife collision took place a little at 4:30 pm local time, late afternoon at best in late March even considering the near- tropical latitude of the Canary Islands. Also, it was foggy, with visibility no greater than 500 meters. Hardly the conditions one would associate with "broad daylight." -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:43 From: "nite rider" Subject: Re: Fed Ex MD-11 crash was mechanical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Big and Purple matt weber wrote in article ... > > > Current published reports in Aviation Week report that the decent rate > was 500fpm, and the initial landing impact was 1.7G, the aircraft bounced, > and the second impact was at 1.69G. Sounds to me like a very hard landing. > The wheel assembly may well have failed, but this was a very hard landing. Yes I had heard a figure of about 1.6g and another of 1.2g. The second figure seemed more consistent with a sink of around 460 fpm (touchdown fpm or approach?, with or without ground effect? --questions I still have ), though a 1.7g landing seems intuitively more consistent with a landing gear collapse. I don't think even a 1.7g touchdown should cause a gear collapse. If every 1.7g touchdown resulted in a crash, most pilots would never live long enough to get an ATP certificate, or to pay alimony to their first ex-wife. However, accompanied with a yaw (we still don't know how much yaw) and roll (don't know how much roll either) the sideload stresses on the landing gear assembly increase exponentially. Why did the aircraft roll and yaw after the first touchdown? Was it caused by mechanical failure? Aggravated by pilot input? Autopilot (and/or autothrottle) input? The point I was making was that the NTSB was focusing the investigation on mechanical failure, based on the condition of landing gear components found in the wreckage, review of preliminary data, and aircrew interviews. For those following this thread the Aviation Week article is posted at http://www.awgnet.com/safety/nzfedx11.htm nite rider From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:44 From: "nite rider" Subject: Re: Re[2]: Fed Ex MD-11 crash was mechanical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Big and Purple Joel S Cole wrote in article ... > Nite Rider, > > I would like to respond to your email stating the MD11 > experienced a wheel failure and ask a couple of questions. > > [1] Who are you? What is your source? Just think of me as a sort of Matt Drudge-like source who wishes to remain anonymous. I'm not a journalist, and this is the internet, and I did say my source was heard from within the company (i.e., second/thirdhand) so don't hold me to anything resembling a major network evening news broadcast journalistic standard, please. Hint-- no bonus for me. > Several rumors have surfaced about this incident, and most, > like your email, has the wrong facts. The data quoted in your email does > NOT agree with that in the latest Aviation Week. The only glaring error I saw (yes I saw the AW article at http://www.awgnet.com/safety/nzfedx11.htm) was the 1.2g figure versus the 1.7g figure in the AW article. Actually, the first figure I heard was "about 1.6g" but 1.2g seemed to come from a more reliable purple source. I stand by my claim that the focus of the investigation shifted to mechanical failure, though I am no longer inclined to draw conclusions from this. At any rate, the depth of the information I received is indicated by the fact that I didn't know the aircraft had bounced and experienced a second impact. After hearing that, I decided this accident is more complex than we thought. Now I have more questions that remain unanswered. > [2] When you say the crash was due to a failure of the "wheel > assembly", do you mean Wheel Assy or Tire Assy? Neither because they didn't say, though the condition of some of the pieces indicated mechanical failure. That's why the focus of the investigation shifted to mechanical failure, apparently. Besides, the crew interviews were completed. Note the right main gear continued down the runway? This seems to suggest it separated early in the chain of events. > After inspecting the failed landing gear parts, I tend to believe > your version; especially when #4 Tire had above average landing cycles on > its carcass. However it must be pointed out that FedEx never experienced > a Wheel failure on a DC10 or MD11. We've had Tire and also Bearing > failures with little, if any, secondary effect. I recall the DC10 that > lost the entire Nose wheel on takeoff from England and landed in MEM with > no damage. I still have many more questions than answers (or rumors). How much roll and yaw did the aircraft experience at the time of the second touchdown? Was it aggravated by crew input? Was this an autolanding (If so did the throttles remain symmetrical throughout?) Which part of the aircraft impacted first after bouncing? Did the anti-skid system function normally? Did the gear fail on the first or second impact? > [3] Even if there was a "Wheel failure", why would this result in a > Gear collapse at an approach of 460 fpm and 1.2 g's? I never said "wheel failure", I said "wheel assembly", which is less specific. There are many possible factors involved-- how about strut underservicing, brake release failure (anti-skid malfunction), tire separation during wheel spin-up, metal fatigue (lots of cycles on this aircraft and previous history of hard landings), to name a few? If the right-hand undercarriage were to collapse it would in turn cause the aircraft to roll right, with the #3 engine impacting the runway, and possibly wing-tip impact; this in turn would aggravate the yaw condition, resulting in a snowballing effect and total loss of control. > Either your numbers on the approach is incorrect (again, refer to > AV Week) or you have underestimated the strength of the landing gear > design. Not considering the yaw and roll at the point of second runway impact. The sideload stresses involved were probably more than a match for a weakened gear structure (this aircraft had a hard landing history) and possibly excessive even for a perfectly intact gear structure. > My guess is maybe a tire blew on the first touch down and there > was no gear failure. (Think of it; why would the aircraft bounce if the > gear broke?) The troubles occurred at the second touch-down: higher g, > right roll. But then the right wing drop could only be attributed to > pilot input. Coming down on only ONE strut, the one that has a flat > tire, maybe could cause the strut to fail. Only pilot input? Wouldn't gear collapse on first rebound cause a yaw and roll to the right? How about asymmetric autothrottle response-induced yaw? Wheel lockup on right main at touchdown? Asymmetric strut servicing? Tire/hub assembly separation on wheel spinup? Loss of hydraulic downlock pressure? I do agree that the most likely cause of catastrophic wheel assembly collapse is a hard touchdown on an excessively loaded gear, due to roll and yaw. Again, more questions than answers. Incidentally, the first officer was credited with going back into the aircraft and pulling out the two jumpseaters inside who were still dazed, hanging upside-down from their straps. nite rider From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:44 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: APUs on A340s 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 kenish@ix.netcom.com "k_ish" writes: >Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: >> I was wondering if someone could answer a question. I have flown on an >> A340 several times now, and there has always been a problem with >> something. Once, the reading lights didn't work properly; they would >> turn on, but not turn off. A second time, none of the toilets worked, >> and the flight was badly delayed. A third time, I got on the airplane, >> and all the cabin lights kept going off and on. Some lights that looked >> like emergency lights came on a few times. >> >> What's the deal? Does the A340 have problems with its auxiliary power >> units? Someone told me they did. There was some problem with A340/330 APUs ..(I think one or two have caught fire on the ground..no pax aboard) but I've read they have been or are being replaced (with restricted ops until replacement). But: As someone else said, the `ghost in the machine' you describe can be extraneous to the APU and more to do with the passenger amenity systems. I was recently on an Air Canada 767-300 and the `fasten seat belt' chime kept going off uncontrolled at random (`Sorry, nothing we can do, sir') ALL NIGHT LONG (trans-Atlantic flight). Niels -- -Niels From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:44 From: Robert Carpenter Subject: Re: APUs on A340s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: rcarpen@EROLS.COM k_ish wrote: > > and all the cabin lights kept going off and on. Some lights that > > looked like emergency lights came on a few times. > > > > What's the deal? Does the A340 have problems with its auxiliary power > > units? Someone told me they did. > > Perhaps they do have APU problems, but the "light show" you saw was a > different system. Ah yes. Almost 25 years ago I rode Brannif's *only* 747 from HNL to Texas. Out over the ocean, the FAs would try to make announcements standing directly under a speaker - so the PA system would screech horribly. Every time that happened there was a "moving sign" light show of the reading lights in the cabin. The FAs made a lot of announcements, and when they had their mike open you could hear the pilots when they talked on their SSB com transmitter. Not entirely reassuring. Bob Carpenter From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:44 From: m@bang.org Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: a2i network Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > both Boeing and Airbus are working with SIA to launch either > a heavier B777-200X (than the originally proposed one) or a > high-gross-weight A340-500. The B777-200X proposal that Boeing was talking about several months ago had a MGTOW of 720,000lb. Boeing reportedly did not launch that design because it didn't meet SIA's range requirements (LAX-SIN year-round). Has a heavier MGTOW been proposed? M Carling -- Microsoft Network is prohibited from reproducing this work, in whole or in part. Copyright 1997, M Carling. License is available to Microsoft Network to reproduce this work for $1000. Unauthorized reproduction by Microsoft Network constitutes agreement to these terms. Please report violations to m@bang.org and postmaster@microsoft.com. From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:44 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Ben wrote: > A319 was launched without any launch customer and orders. Yes, but you have to consider that this was a *unique* situation. Also the investment for the A319 was not at all comparable to the 2.5 B$ for the A340-500/600. Cheers ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:45 From: t.o.berg@labmed.uio.no (Trond Olav Berg) Subject: Questions about the DH Comet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Universitet i Oslo I am curious about the first commercial jet airliner: the british Comet. When was this project started? How many years was it manufactured, and where was it built? How many planes were built, and when was the last one assembled? How many years was it in traffic, and which routes did they fly most frequently? Was it a safe plane? How did jets inside the wings perform, compared to the jets on the 707 etc? Trond Olav Berg, Oslo From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:45 From: Phil Wood Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AeroMarketing Associates (http://www.aeromarketing.com) Reply-To: woodp@netgate.net m@bang.org wrote: > Wrong. The FARs permit the airlines to allow anyone to ride in a jumpseat. Well, almost anyone... Herb probably wouldn't qualify under 121.547(b) alone, unless he had already been authorized by 121.547(a)4. 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 crewmember; (2) An FAA air carrier inspector, or an authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board, who is 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. Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not limit the emergency authority of the pilot in command to exclude any person from the flight deck in the interests of safety. (b) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, employees of the United States who deal responsibly with matters relating to safety and employees of the certificate holder whose efficiency would be increased by familiarity with flight conditions, may be admitted by the certificate holder. However, the certificate holder may not admit employees of traffic, sales, or other departments that are not directly related to flight operations, unless they are eligible under paragraph (a)(4) of this section. (c) No person may admit any person to the flight deck unless there is a seat available for his use in the passenger compartment, except - (1) An FAA air carrier inspector or an authorized representative of the Administrator or National Transportation Safety Board who is checking or observing flight operations; (2) An air traffic controller who is authorized by the Administrator to observe ATC procedures; (3) A certificated airman employed by the certificate holder whose duties require an airman certificate; {New-96-1 Revised Jan. 26, 1996, effective Feb. 26, 1996. The phrase, "certificate holder" was, "carrier".} (4) A certificated airman employed by another certificate holder whose duties with that certificate holder require an airman certificate and who is authorized by the certificate holder operating the aircraft to make specific trips over a route; (5) An employee of the certificate holder operating the aircraft whose duty is directly related to the conduct or planning of flight operations or the in-flight monitoring of aircraft equipment or operating procedures, if his presence on the flight deck is necessary to perform his duties and he has been authorized in writing by a responsible supervisor, listed in the Operations Manual as having that authority; and (6) A technical representative of the manufacturer of the aircraft or its components whose duties are directly related to the in-flight monitoring of aircraft equipment or operating procedures, if his presence on the flight deck is necessary to perform his duties, and he has been authorized in writing by the Administrator and by a responsible supervisor of the operations department of the certificate holder, listed in the Operations Manual as having that authority. -- Phil Wood woodp@netgate.net 73717.3453@compuserve.com Philip.Wood@sv.sc.philips.com Phil Wood From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:45 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Reply-To: kenish@ix.netcom.com Brad Hunnewell wrote: > Gary Welch wrote: > > > ... the airlines have their own rules preventing staff members smoking on > > > board. > > > > I've read that Southwest's chain-smoking CEO, Herb Kellerher, frequently > > flies in the jump seat so he can smoke. > > Sounds like an urban legend. Unless ol' Herb is a 121/135 flightcrew > member, he shouldn't be able to ride in the jumpseat- even on "his" > planes, right?? Anyone? On foreign carriers, I usually ask for a visit to the flight deck. My request has never been turned down. This includes flights to / from US cities. Once, I was on a flight delayed into ORD. I barely made the connecting UA "puddle-jumper" flight, a 737. They closed the door behind me, pointed into the flight deck, and asked me to please give my carry-on to the FO, as they were out of overhead and closet space. He secured my bag in the jumpseat, and apologized that regs would not let me ride in the jumpseat and my carry-on in back! Ken Ishiguro From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:45 From: "Stefano P. Pagiola" Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM M Carling wrote: >> ... Unless ol' Herb is a 121/135 flightcrew >> member, he shouldn't be able to ride in the jumpseat- >> even on "his" planes, right?? Anyone? > > Wrong. The FARs permit the airlines to allow anyone > to ride in a jumpseat. The FAR # and rule have been > posted here before. ... writing [an airline] a letter > asking permission to ride in a jumpseat for a specific > flight may work, particularly if you've paid full fare. Well, it's very unusual to catch M in an error, but I believe this is one such. According to the FARs, part 121 section 547: : Sec. 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 crewmember; : (2) An FAA air carrier inspector, or an authorized : representative of the National Transportation : Safety Board, who is 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. Herb Kelleher is an employee of Southwest (the "certificate holder" in this case), but does not satisfy the other criteria under point (3) above; ie his presence on the flightdeck is neither required nor "advantageous to safe operation". In fact, the FARs go on specifically to state: : For the purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, : employees of the United States who deal responsibly : with matters relating to safety and employees of the : certificate holder whose efficiency would be increased : by familiarity with flight conditions, may be admitted : by the certificate holder. However, the certificate : holder may not admit employees of traffic, sales, or : other departments that are not directly related to : flight operations Herb and M's hypothetical letter-writer could be given permission to ride on the flightdeck under condition (4), but it would require not just the airline's but also the FAA's ("the administrator") approval (as well as the pilot). FARs can be checked at http://www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search_fars.html Stefano -- All opinions are my own. Check out my web site (under construction) at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/ From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:46 From: Phil Wood Subject: Re: Airliner Routing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AeroMarketing Associates (http://www.aeromarketing.com) Reply-To: woodp@netgate.net Michael W. Noel wrote: > Here is/are my question(s)... Mike, I don't know any sources of the specific information you are looking for, but ... - If you know the airline, flight number and destination, try http://www.weatherconcepts.com/FlyteTrax/ftquery_alt.html - If the flights are indeed coming from KPHL, then they are probably following a documented departure precedure called a SID (Standard Instrument Departure) that takes them from the airport environment to the en-route environment. The air traffic control frequencies along the SID may change may change depending on work-load, but are usually pretty consistant. Get out your phone book and call the Philly FAA number at the airport. Explain you're an aviation aficianado and you would like to listen to the communication on a scanner. I've never been turned down although I may get transfered from guy to guy to guy until we get the one who knows the freqs off the top of his head. Alternately, someone who flied in the Philly area (or has his Philly charts handy) might be able to chime in with the correct freqs. Good luck! -- Phil Wood woodp@netgate.net 73717.3453@compuserve.com Philip.Wood@sv.sc.philips.com Phil Wood From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:46 From: gerwocii@aol.com (GERWOCII) Subject: Re: Airliner Routing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Mike get yourself a scanner. Learn what the frequencys are at the airport in your area. Sounds like your near Philly. Go to a pilot shop near or on a local airport they can help you get frequencys and charts. Sounds like these aircraft are already being handeled by center controllers So you will need the center frequency (is it PIT?) for that area of the country. You will probally only hear the aircraft side of the transmissions becuase they are flying overhead. Then again this is a pretty expensive way to find out what flights are goin over your house Uh Oh Here comes a flock of WHAAA WHAAA's!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Joe Walsh From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:46 From: rsmorris@erols.com (R. Morris) Subject: Re: Airliner Routing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Erol's Internet Services In article , the2nd0l@gte.net wrote: > #1 Is there a site(s) on the WWW where I could determine the > following... > > What is the flight info on any commercial flight passing over a given > point at a specific time ?? Is there some repository of info on the > normal time dependent "routes" of airliners ?? (And yes, I recognize > that there are flight "delays", but I am really interested in the > "reasonably" accurate "scheduled" times.) There used to be an FAA site where you could track any flight on a map, but it seems to have been taken down permanently. If you have the airline and flight number, you can get current data on most flights from: http://www.amerwxcncpt.com/flytrax.html/ > For example: What ground "site" would be in control of these flights in > the York, PA are ? Where do those flights originate ? Where are they > going ? What are the airline/flight number designations ? What > "air-to-ground" radio frequencies would they be using ? Etc. ? Is > there any other available info ?? If they are that high up they would likely becontrolled by the ARTCC. Some freqs in your area would be: Washington Center Hagerstown ....... 134.15 Westminster....... 118.75 NY Center Williamsport ..... 124.9 Big Flat ......... 132.2 -- R. Morris http://www.erols.com/rsmorris From kls Thu Aug 28 02:30:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 02:30:46 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Logo Technology References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com > Air Canada Maple Leaf logo... is not painted its a decal.... Sorry even if the thread is old, i have one question concerning the new colours of China Airlines. Is this fantastic orchid (?) ( ... I think ) a logo or a decal ? Cheers, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Thu Aug 28 04:00:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 04:00:52 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Logo Technology References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >concerning the new colours of China Airlines ... orchid (?) They web page (http://www.china-airlines.com/) notes the corporate identity change under the banner Era of the Plum Blossom, so I'd guess it's a plum blossom. It's definitely not an orchid. >a logo or a decal ? Yes. It's a logo, and almost certainly applied to the aircraft using a decal. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:35 From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Re: Why are all airliners white? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >(Well, most of American's planes. Some of the A300-600Rs may still >be painted grey, though in time all of them will be bare metal.) - Would you mind expanding on this? I thought the reason for they grey paint was that Airbus wasn't keeping track of the aluminum grain during the production process. Thus, a bare plane would look something like a checkerboard. I could understand if they finially changed this for new production, but don't understand how an existing plane could be fixed. Ken From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:35 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Why are all airliners white? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California 73115.1041@compuserve.com (Ken Jongsma) wrote: >kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>(Well, most of American's planes. Some of the A300-600Rs may still >>be painted grey, though in time all of them will be bare metal.) >Would you mind expanding on this? I thought the reason for they grey >paint was that Airbus wasn't keeping track of the aluminum grain >during the production process. Thus, a bare plane would look something >like a checkerboard. I believe the last few AA A300-605Rs were delivered bare (other than the composite parts, which must be painted). As for the others, I had always heard the same as you, but Eastern went to a bare scheme on many aircraft that had been built for them in the days of white fuselages. The result didn't look too ratty, at least no rattier than you'd expect given Eastern's condition in its final years. AA didn't just strip their Airbuses at the first overhaul because Airbus would have voided the warranty had they done so. AA finally twisted their arm hard enough to relent on the warranty issue. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:35 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Thrust/HP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin brian whatcott wrote: > > In article , > gordow@cts.com says... > > > >.,.. could anyone explain the > >mathematical relationship of thrust(rocket or jet) and horsepower. > >More precisely, how does one convert from one to the other.... > > By this time, you will have seen the profusion of responses. > No one quite fingered the root of the difficulty, which is this: > > pure jets produce (somewhat) constant thrust > BUT > prop engines produce (somewhat) constant horse power. >This has the rather strange consequence that >a prop plane produces progressively LESS thrust force with increasing >speed, > BUT >pure jets produce progressively MORE horse power with increasing >speed. But you are really tiptoeing around here is a consequence of how we choose to define the measuement. Propellor engines are only rated in "horsepower" because it is quite easy to connect the output shaft to a dynomometer and measure how much power is being delivered *to* the propellor- and that is the rating. We could just as easily measure the *thrust* produced by the propellor, in which case the ratings for a jet and propellor powerplant would look much more similar. A propellor engine, *just like a jet* delivers ZERO horsepower to the *airframe* if the airframe is sitting still, even though the engine may be delivering 5000 horsepower to the propellor via the shaft. Those 5000 HP are going into moving *air* not into the *airframe,* same as with a jet. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:35 From: "Patt" Subject: Re: Airliner Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HOU M. Yan Chin wrote in article ... | Is there a technical reason why all airliners seem to have the same | small windows? Larger ones seem like such an obvious thing to do to | enhance passenger comfort. The size of the windows is proportional to pressurization differential for structural safety reasons... ie: the Concorde has smaller windows (higher differential), than a Boeing airplane (7 1/2 - 8 psi) and if you remember the Vickers Viscount and F-27 had larger oval shaped windows, being turboprops with lower pressurization differential. Patt From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:35 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:35 From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Re: Airliner Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None "M. Yan Chin" wrote: >Is there a technical reason why all airliners seem to have the same >small windows? Larger ones seem like such an obvious thing to do to >enhance passenger comfort. Along the same lines, why are the windows set so low in the fuselage? I am 6' and find that the top of the window is about shoulder high, making it very hard to look out without sliding down in the seat! Ken From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:36 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: 737-900 (was Re: Aer Lingus signs for A321s) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Karl Swartz wrote: > >The -900 was approved by Boeing directors in June ... > > By "approved" I assume you mean that the board authorized the Boeing > sales force to present the proposal to customers, though I can find > nothing to support even that. > > >According to Boeing, if advance sales go well, the -900 could be launched > >before the end of the year and be ready for delivery in about two years. > > Right, the 737-900 has NOT been approved in the usual sense of > launching the production of it. Karl, the lines I put in the above thread are mainly extracted from a Seattle Times article published last Sunday. It may be found on their website in the technology section. I was the first one to be surprised by reading that the -900 was approved by the Boeing directors. - Either it is another times : $%#% news media! - or the Seattle Times is (once more) better informed than all of us. More seriously I think that as you stated the -900 project can be presented to potential customers. One of the first customers should be BA to replace the 757 on short european flights, just to save landing fees ... My $.02 ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:36 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 737-900 (was Re: Aer Lingus signs for A321s) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> >The -900 was approved by Boeing directors in June ... >> >> By "approved" I assume you mean that the board authorized the Boeing >> sales force to present the proposal to customers, though I can find >> nothing to support even that. > >Karl, the lines I put in the above thread are mainly extracted from a >Seattle Times article published last Sunday. Ah, I found it. For those who don't want to search, the URL is http://www.seattletimes.com/sbin/iarecord?NS-search-set=/3405f/aaaa006bE05f30b&NS-doc-offset=0& >- Either it is another times : $%#% news media! >- or the Seattle Times is (once more) better informed than all of us. They do make it relatively clear that it hasn't been launched yet. Three paragraphs after the mention of board approval, they cite a Boeing VP who said the 737-900 could be launched before the end of the year if the sales effort goes well. I think it just read wrong without that added context from the article. I'm mildly surprised at their claim that the 737-900 will allow 18 more seats (three rows) over the 737-800. What I had heard before was that the -900 wouldn't offer more capacity then the -800, but would allow a more generous pitch when configured to the maximum number of seats. I couldn't imagine enough demand for that to justify yet another stretch; 18 more seats is far more believable. Incidentally, I saw the first 737-800 at Boeing Field several few weeks ago. It was in the hangar with a 737-700 (two or three more of which were outside). I ignored it at first since the -700s were more interesting than another 757, even if the 757 was in Boeing colors. I finally got around to looking at it more carefully (I was not very close, unfortunately) and eventually realized that the cockpit windows were not those of a 757 but rather a 737. That is a *big* aircraft! Between the increased wingspan and the fuselage stretch, it doesn't really look like a 737 any more. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:36 From: "Gerard van Es" Subject: Re: A310 crash - details wanted References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The National Aerospace Laboratory NLR igloo wrote in article ... > Finding it difficult to locate substantive details on the loss of an > A310-304 hull belonging to Russian International Airways, all > I can locate is the following: > > 22 March 1994; Russian International Airways A310; near Novokuznetsk, > Russia: Lost control and crashed after the captain had allowed at > least one child to manipulate the flight controls. All 12 crew and 63 > passengers were killed >From our airsafety databases I obtained the following: Contact was lost with the aircraft while it was enroute from Moscow to Hong Kong and it was later found to have crashed in a remote area of Kemeroskoi. The accident happened in darkness (0130 local) about four hours after take-off. There was no distress call. Prior to the accident the aircraft had been in cruising flight at 10,100m with the autopilot engaged. The last radio contact a few minutes before the crash, had been a routine position report with no indications of any difficulties. The departure from controlled flight apparently began when the aircraft entered a right bank with a 2.5deg. per second rate of roll. This rate of roll continued for 25 sec., at least initially, without being noticed by the crew. As the angle of bank exceeded 60deg., engine thrust began to increase, commanded by the auto throttle in an attempt by the autopilot to maintain the aircraft's assigned altitude. The bank continued, eventually reaching almost 90deg. During attempts to recover control of the aircraft it pitched up steeply experiencing high accelerations, up to +4.8g. The aircraft stalled and entered a spin. As the aircraft approached the Novokuznetsk reporting point, the captain's daughter entered the cockpit. A few minutes later the captain vacated the left hand flight crew seat, and allowed his daughter to take his place. He then briefly demonstrated some of the features of the autopilot, using the HDG/S and NAV submodes to alter the aircraft's heading, first to the left and then back to the right onto the correct heading. These manoeuvres were carried out without any noticeable force being applied to the control wheel. Shortly after this the captain's son took his sisters place in the left seat. It would appear that the captain then intended to demonstrate the same manoeuvre but at this point his son asked if he could turn the control wheel. His father gave permission and his son then turned the wheel slightly, applying a force of between 8 and 10kg., and held it in that position for a few seconds, before returning the wheel to the approximate neutral position again. The captain then repeated the demonstration he had given his daughter, ending by using the autopilot's NAV submode to bring the aircraft back on course. Unfortunately, as the autopilot attempted to level the aircraft on its programmed heading it came into conflict with inputs from the control wheel which was 'blocked' in a neutral position. The forces acting on the control wheels gradually increased over a period of about 10 sec., reaching a maximum of about 12 to 13kg. At that point the torque limiter activated and disconnected the autopilot servo from the aileron control linkage although the autopilot remained engaged. This was not noticed by the crew. After the autopilot servo was disconnected, the right bank gradually increased, reaching 45 deg. after 21sec. At this point the autopilot was no longer able to maintain altitude and the aircraft began to descend. After a further 3 sec., with the aircraft now in more than a 50 deg. bank, buffeting began. The buffeting immediately alerted the captain to the problem and he directed the co-pilot to 'hold the control wheel'. However, as the right flight crew seat was apparently in its fully back position, it took the co-pilot 2 to 3 sec. to reach forward to the wheel and move it. The co-pilot then attempted to recover the situation but, apparently due to the extreme attitude the aircraft had reached, the lack of external reference, possible spatial disorientation and the fact that there was a delay in disconnecting the autopilot and auto throttle, he and the captain who had now managed to regain his seat were not successful and the aircraft impacted the ground 2 min and 6 sec. later. GW From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:36 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign cstone@math.math.unm.edu (Chris Stone) writes: >Perhaps; but the Russian military can afford very little these days, and >I suspect keeping runways open for ETOPS operations falls near the bottom >of the list. Unless, of course, they are being paid hard currency to do precisely that. The Russian military has demonstrated relatively reliable operations when they are being *paid* regularly. I think you would find that keeping those airfields open could be made to be a top priority for a "modest fee". Terry From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:36 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic becomes first A340-600 customer; Air Canada orders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , wrote: >Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: >> both Boeing and Airbus are working with SIA to launch either >> a heavier B777-200X (than the originally proposed one) or a >> high-gross-weight A340-500. > >The B777-200X proposal that Boeing was talking about several months ago had a >MGTOW of 720,000lb. Boeing reportedly did not launch that design because it >didn't meet SIA's range requirements (LAX-SIN year-round). Has a heavier >MGTOW been proposed? Most definitely. However, I don't know what is the latest proposal. American is another major airline that Boeing is working with to define the B777-200X and -300X. I think the earlier -200X proposal met AA's requirement, but the -300X did not. I believe AA's -300X requirement is a plane capable of year-round, full-payload, non-stop service between Dallas/Fort Worth and Tokyo. From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:36 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: Q: Smoking on flight deck References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Herb and M's hypothetical letter-writer could be given >permission to ride on the flightdeck under condition (4), >but it would require not just the airline's but also the >FAA's ("the administrator") approval (as well as the pilot). Herb would (probably) have little trouble getting the appropriate approval...and that could come from the POI who could sign "for" the Administrator. Not too difficult (IMHO) to understand the rationale for the CEO needing occasional access, and benefiting from exposure to the flight deck. On the other hand, I am aware of FAA action against a CEO (US Carrier) who rode the flight deck with his son on an international flight returning to the US...so the advance approval is an important step. From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:36 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting References: <5ti4c3$oct$24@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >>There have been several accidents at UA with equipment hitting the aircraft >>at night. The paint job is so dark, with the midnight blue and grey, that >>it is hard to see at night and judge how close or far away one is. >Does UA use wingwalkers while reciving an aircraft at the gate? Do they >clear the safety envelope before the aircraft arrives? Im not being rude. >I am curious. These thing go a long way in preventing these kinds of >accidents. Please ignore the source address for my message...but, IMHO, there should be no doubt that conspicuity of aircraqft is an important issue...and blue and grey not the most conspicuous livery. As long as a carrier is willing to underwrite the expenses associated with ground incidents, and the costs of liability there is currently little other leverage that can be applied to encourage a change in aircraft paint. Some current paint schemes are intuitively less visible than others. One would hope rational thinking would prevail, and as aircraft are cycled for refit/refurbish/painted the colors (conspicuity) would be, from the safety perspective, improved. Shouldn't take rulemaking or legislation to make such common sense initiatives happen!!! From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:36 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:36 From: John van Veen Subject: Re: Reverse Thrust in Air (was Trident/More Weirdness)) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote: >In smaller beasts, an ex-US Customs pilot told me of doing short >field approaches in their King* Air. Basically, cross the threshold >low and dirty, put both sides in reverse pitch and LAND, period. That is hard to imagine! If one side failed to reverse you would be in a world of hurt. I have seen many short field take offs and landings. Most of the pilots sort of flew the plane onto the ground and then reversed the props with max brakes. You want to get solid contact with the ground to get the maximum benifit of your brakes in such a landing. These were mostly C-130's BTW. And one did have a prop fail to reverse one day. Off the runway and into the sand. No one was hurt but the plane became spare parts. John From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:37 From: greg20@ix.netcom.com (Greg Rendell) Subject: Re: Airliner Routing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In Phil Wood writes: >Alternately, someone who flied in the Philly area (or has his Philly >charts handy) might be able to chime in with the correct freqs. You might want to check out my web page, "Greg's Guide to Spotting at PHL" at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1273/phl.html. I have a rather long list of frequencies used at PHL, along with their designation (tower, ground, Washington Center, Departures (090-270 degrees)) etc. I think you will find it to be of some help to you. Thanks, Greg Rendell in Aston, PA greg20@ix.netcom.com http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1273/ From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:37 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Airliner Routing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com GERWOCII wrote: > > Mike get yourself a scanner. Learn what the frequencys are at the airport > in your area. Is there a website where the frequencys for most airports are listed ? Brgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Thu Aug 28 15:40:37 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 15:40:37 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Trond Olav Berg wrote: > I am curious about the first commercial jet airliner: the british Comet. > When was this project started? It was started with the Barbazon comitee in Jun 43, which proposed 5 a/c to be built by GB. On of which was the DH 106 alias Comet. > How many years was it manufactured, and where was it built? It was built in Hatfield (GB). First flight of the prototype was on 27 Jul 49. > How many planes were built, and when was the last one assembled? A total of 113 planes were built. The last one was delivered to United Arab Airlines on the 26 Feb 64. > How many years was it in traffic, and which routes did they fly most > frequently? Most frequent routes were the empire routes. India, South Africa to GB. > Was it a safe plane? No, there were 20 crashes with Comets. De Havilland underestimated the forces and stress at high altitude and speed. However there were no references at that time so the constructor can't (fully) be blamed. Also calculators and computers were not existing .. After solving the structural problems the Comet4 was pretty safe, meaning that most incidents could not directly be blamed on design defects. > How did jets inside the wings perform, compared to the jets on the 707 etc? This design was unique. It was very nice for the eyes, meaning the a/c was superb to observe with this one of a kind design. However an engine mounted in a wing is not very safe. Think that the engine is running at high speed and that in the wing you have that huge amount of fuel. So if a blade separates, you will have a nice explosion. After the YP crash the shielding around the engines were reinforced, just in case of ... None of the Comet crashes was due to engine explosion. As you might see I am fascinated by this grandma. I'm working hard to launch my DH Comet pages on my website next month. Brgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Comet homepage coming soon <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Thu Aug 28 22:33:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 22:33:33 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , m@bang.org wrote: >JFK-SIN is long enough that the B777-200IGW just cannot fly it nonstop, and >an aircraft cannot hold the route captive. The JFK-SIN flight would need to >depart prior to the arrival of the SIN-JFK flight in order to have reasonable >arrival and departure times at SIN. Don't forget that airplanes have maintenance rquirements so scheduling a route to hold one plane captive makes little sense if it doesn't allow time for needed maintenance. At least at UA, I believe a 747 needs a #3 service, essentially an overnight check, every 45 flight hours. Note that this is insufficient for two roundtrips JFK-NRT. If you were to dedicate a plane to a route like JFK-SIN, it is going to need that overnight check at the end of every roundtrip. And don't forget to allow for A checks (about weekly) and B checks (about monthly) that can also be done during an overnight but do require more hours (I believe a #3 service can be done during the 6 hours or so our planes overnight in SIN - an A or a B check can't). -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Thu Aug 28 22:33:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 22:33:33 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California In article , lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) wrote:>In article , m@bang.org wrote: >>JFK-SIN is long enough that the B777-200IGW just cannot fly it nonstop, and >>an aircraft cannot hold the route captive. The JFK-SIN flight would need to >>depart prior to the arrival of the SIN-JFK flight in order to have reasonable >>arrival and departure times at SIN. > >Don't forget that airplanes have maintenance rquirements so scheduling a >route to hold one plane captive makes little sense if it doesn't allow >time for needed maintenance. > >At least at UA, I believe a 747 needs a #3 service, essentially an >overnight check, every 45 flight hours ... >(I believe a #3 service can be done during the 6 hours >or so our planes overnight in SIN - an A or a B check can't). Back in March, I did some back-of-the-(virtual)-envelope analysis of really long thin routes in private e-mail. That was looking at the market viability of double daily flights with smaller planes, assuming that it's only interesting to do so if you can reasonably schedule the flights at different times. (Otherwise, why not use one big plane?) I was also just looking at ORD/JFK-HKG, wondering if it would make sense to replace UA's 747-400 flight with smaller aircraft. Here's the original version with some minor editing: United already has a significant presence in Hong Kong. Expansion is plausible since it's one of the few Asian cities outside Japan with the local business market to support a decent hub, but slots at Kai Tak and distance from the eastern half of North America are problems. Chek Lap Kok will eliminate the slot problem, and new aircraft will eliminate the range issue. Given planes with the range, year-round ORD-HKG plus JFK-HKG would make sense. Would the departure and arrival times work to allow two daily hubs? Let's see ... this was the schedule for UA 895/896: 896 HKG 940a ORD 1140a (Mon,Thu,Sat departures) 895 ORD 345p HKG 840p+1 (Tue,Thu,Sat departures - Thu 50 min later) HKG RON *** RON means Remain OverNight -- 13 hours should permit even the monthly B check. The 1997 schedule looks like this: 896 HKG 805a ORD 929a (Mon,Thu,Sat departures; 14:24 block time) 895 ORD 125p HKG 615p+1 (Tue,Thu,Sat departures; 15:50 block time) For a second flight, you could do something like this: ORD 935a HKG 240p+1 (gets feed from morning bank, in for dinner) HKG 600p ORD 800p (day in HKG, feeds late ORD bank) ORD RON JFK is ~45 minutes more flying time (another 245 nm), and there's a one hour time zone difference. JFK 1000a HKG 250p+1 HKG 610p JFK 755p JFK RON Those look remarkably appealing, at least if you can sleep on planes (don't look at me!), and nicely complement the times of the other non-stops. Seems entirely reasonable to do 2x daily with smaller aircraft. With times like these, it might also make sense to do two hubs per day at HKG, with semi-dedicated aircraft. Much more sense than with just one hub, as UA originally tried at LHR (and later CDG). *** That's the end of the stuff from March. Now, what about JFK-SIN? It's 1274 nm further than JFK-HKG -- roughly four more hours block time. Same time zone. Right now, UA's best offering is JFK-NRT-SIN leaving at 115p, arriving 1145p the next day. Going the other way, another NRT connection allows an 800a departure, arriving 455p the same afternoon. Overnight non-stops JFK-SIN and return provide an alternative for those who can sleep on planes and allow dinner in SIN and a full day in New York. With only minor changes to the ORD/JFK-HKG schedule suggested above, a rotation can be created which accomodates all of these flights and the maintenance requirements, without "wasting" the equipment on routes where a less capable aircraft would work. Day Depart Arrive Block Ground Note --- --------- ----------- ----- ------ ---- 1+ JFK 805a SIN 455p+1 20:50 4:45 arrive SIN for dinner 2+ SIN 940p JFK 525a+1 19:45 6:00 Service #3 (barely) 3+ JFK 1125a HKG 415p+1 16:50 1:45 still in time for dinner; quick turn 4 HKG 600p ORD 800p 15:00 13:35 Service #3 or A/B check 5+ ORD 935a HKG 240p+1 16:05 3:15 feed from morning westbound hub 6 HKG 545p JFK 930p 15:45 10:25 Service #3 Moving JFK-SIN to an evening departure provides a different, maybe better schedule. An extra aircraft allows the addition of a SIN-HKG flight that feeds HKG-ORD/JFK (and a similar reverse), providing useful connections, and adding the flexibility to schedule SIN-JFK at a more appealing time. The rotation now cycles in seven days, which would obviously work better if the flights aren't daily. Enough time is available at each service opportunity for an A/B check if needed Day Depart Arrive Block Ground Note --- --------- ----------- ----- ------ ---- 1+ JFK 1025p SIN 715a+2 20:50 5:15 dinner in NYC; breakfast in SIN 3 SIN 1230p HKG 415p 3:45 1:45 feeds ORD/JFK 3 HKG 600p ORD 800p 15:00 13:45 feeds late hub 4+ ORD 945a HKG 250p+1 16:05 2:55 feed from morning hub 5 HKG 545p JFK 930p 15:45 12:55 full day in HKG 6+ JFK 1025a HKG 315p+1 16:50 1:40 earlier to meet HKG-SIN 7 HKG 455p SIN 830p 3:35 2:20 feed from ORD/JFK 7+ SIN 1050p JFK 635a+1 19:45 15:50 better time; long layover now This schedule seems to have a lot of extra layover time, but it's no worse than UA's rotations for the 747-400s currently flying ORD/JFK-NRT. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Thu Aug 28 22:33:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 22:33:34 From: Graham Glen Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ain't nobody here but us chickens In article , Trond Olav Berg writes >I am curious about the first commercial jet airliner: the british Comet. > >When was this project started? The events which eventually led to the Comet started in early 1943, but the basic specification was drawn up in August & September 1946. First flight of the prototype was 27th July 1949. >How many years was it manufactured, and where was it built? I don't have the production dates, but the first flight was as above, the last Comet 4C had it's first flight on 4th February 1964. They were built at Hatfield and Hawarden (Chester). >How many planes were built, and when was the last one assembled? Including the two Comet prototypes and the two Nimrod prototypes a total of 117 were built. One of these, 6402 became a structural test specimen in an effort to find the cause of the two aircraft lost to structural failure. The Nimrod prototypes were converted from Comet 4C airframes that were stored after the end of production. The second of these made it's first flight on 23rd May 1967. The aircraft prior to these two (ie the last aircraft built and flown as a Comet) made its first flight in February 1964. >How many years was it in traffic, and which routes did they fly mostfrequently? >Was it a safe plane? Ignoring route proving flights and sales related flights, the first scheduled flight carrying paying passengers took place on the 2nd May 1952, from London to Johannesburg. The last revenue earning flight was on 9th November 1980. I can't help you with any more information, but I can recommend the book from which I have taken all of this information: Classic Civil Aircraft: 3 De Havilland Comet Philip J. Birtles Published by Ian Allen ISBN 0 7110 1947 9 Regards Graham -- Graham Glen graham@irving.demon.co.uk ".. and it always was possible to measure the distance between so-called management and the so-called creative by the time it took for a memo to go in one direction and a half-brick to come back in the other." Dennis Potter From kls Thu Aug 28 22:33:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 22:33:34 From: "Carl Peters, M.D." Subject: Re: 727 cooper vanes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc BAEJS3201 wrote: > I recently talked to a mechanic at work and the subject of the Cooper Vane > on the 727 aft airstairs came up. He said this has develop after the DP > Cooper Hijacking. These do exist - I have seen them up close on a TWA 727 at MCI maintenance. It is a small vane that mounts on a spring loaded pivot on the fuselage next to the aft stairwell door. It normally rests perpendicular to the airflow/aircraft longitudinal axis. During takeoff, the airstream deflects the vane 90 degrees, which slides the the body of the device across the door margin, thus precluding the opening/lowering of the stairs. Carl Peters From kls Thu Aug 28 22:33:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 22:33:34 From: Peter Coe Subject: Re: Airliner Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Speaking for myself.org. Reply-To: Peter Coe "M. Yan Chin" writes: >Is there a technical reason why all airliners seem to have the same >small windows? Larger ones seem like such an obvious thing to do to >enhance passenger comfort. Most airplane windows aren't small - Concorde's are small (think palm sized). I must agree with your sentiments however, and the answer is very simply, weight. Windows are 3 or four layers of relatively thick plastic, plus they are surrounded by significant bracing of the main airplane structure. Purpose built freighter aircraft do not have either the windows, or the bracing around the window holes. My personal complaint about most windows is that they are mounted far to low in the cabin walls. The top of the window is usually below my eye level. From kls Thu Aug 28 22:33:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 28 Aug 97 22:33:34 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Airliner Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net Ken Jongsma wrote: > "M. Yan Chin" wrote: > > >Is there a technical reason why all airliners seem to have the same > >small windows? Larger ones seem like such an obvious thing to do to > >enhance passenger comfort. > > Along the same lines, why are the windows set so low in the fuselage? > I am 6' and find that the top of the window is about shoulder high, > making it very hard to look out without sliding down in the seat! > > Ken "Transparencies" (windows) are multi-layer glass and acrylic units and quite a bit heavier than an aluminum fuselage "plug". Bigger holes in the fuselage (bigger windows) would require heavier structure in the window-surround area to ensure failsafe damage tolerance. For this reason, purpose-built freighters are actually lighter, as they carry less structure, due to no windows. As far as the elevation of the window belt-line goes, it's based on structural considerations and sited around 50th percentile passenger ergonomics -- well below 6' "average" heights. -- - Bob Mann R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Airline Industry Analysis and Consulting Port Washington, NY 11050 USA office 516-944-0900, fax-7280, mailto:rwmannco@interport.net http://www.interport.net/~rwmannco/ From news Thu Aug 28 15:27:55 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!144.212.100.12!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: Graeme Cant Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific Date: 28 Aug 1997 15:39:08 -0400 Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <5u4k56$153$5@kragar.kei.com> References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> Karl Swartz wrote: > >Considering the benefits of twins, would investing in a bit of concrete > >not be advantagious by the airlines with large Asia-America traffic? > > That or other upgrades such as ILS at an airport which already has a > long runway but perhaps doesn't have very good weather. The ILS would be more important than the concrete. I think in your earlier posts you over-emphasised the importance of the runway and other facilities compared with the weather. The airlines - and Boeing - do not expect to ever actually use any of these airports. The logistics of recovering a load of passengers and a large aeroplane from places like Majuro and Tarawa are not really relevant. What is needed is adequate length of concrete/asphalt and predictably good weather. Remote islands in the Pacific have good weather and that's made them valuable. Equally remote strips in the Arctic will almost certainly lack the good weather. An ETOPS airport MUST be available from a met viewpoint or the flight cannot plan to use it and must fly a longer route. From others' comments, Barrow would be unavailable on many occasions because of fog alone. As I said, the ILS would be useful in lowering the minima but Arctic fog has the reputation (I don't know it from experience luckily, I've stuck to Pacific islands) of being hard to beat. Graeme Cant From news Thu Aug 28 23:11:09 1997 Newsgroups: fj.rec.aerospace,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.ultralight,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!daver!newsgate.tandem.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: Mike McDermott <100447.764@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Smoke generator Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 04:50:31 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Can anyone tell me/cite references on how to build a 'smoke' generating wand to use in a model wind tunnel to create smoke trails for flow visualisation? I have made a few attempts to vaporise kerosene, oil etc with small electrical heaters in the ends of tubes but after some small fires etc I think I need some expert advice. Mike McDermott From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:39 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fracturing the Pacific References: <5sg78u$1sd$6@kragar.kei.com> <5snqjp$cp4$1@kragar.kei.com> <5so7rk$3cr@examiner.concentric.net> <5u4k56$153$5@kragar.kei.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Graeme Cant wrote: >Karl Swartz wrote: >> >Considering the benefits of twins, would investing in a bit of concrete >> >not be advantagious by the airlines with large Asia-America traffic? >> >> That or other upgrades such as ILS at an airport which already has a >> long runway but perhaps doesn't have very good weather. > >The ILS would be more important than the concrete. I think in your >earlier posts you over-emphasised the importance of the runway and other >facilities compared with the weather. I didn't think I'd written much about the runways, other than looking at some of the more obscure airports to see if they had scheduled service with larger jets -- which implies a decent runway, but also other services. Scheduled service also implies that the weather can't be *too* horrible, since most carriers won't schedule service that they know they'll have to cancel much of the time. (To the annoyance of some, I preferred Western carriers. Russian and other former Soviet Bloc carriers may fly into places that Western carriers wouldn't because they don't have as much winter experience, lack the ability to land on unpaved runways, are more risk-averse, and/or because outsiders aren't allowed to land there.) I agree that weather is a very important factor. I may have under- emphasized it's importance to a degree because I don't buy all of the arguments against Arctic ETOPS based on the unsubstantiated guess that airports north of the Arctic circle will be innundated by snow and thus unavailable for most of the winter. Some of those airports have scheduled service year 'round, with planes like MD-80s, not specially equipped C-130s or other snow-capable aircraft. I don't see how that can be if snow closes the airports for most of the winter. >An ETOPS airport MUST be available from a met viewpoint or the flight >cannot plan to use it and must fly a longer route. To be precise, it must be available during the times when you expect to be depending on it, within a certain confidence level which depends on how far in the future you might need it. If a nominated alternate is closed, due to fog, for example, you can still dispatch if you'll need it in two hours and the forecast is for the fog to have burned off within one hour. >As I said, the ILS would be useful in lowering the minima but Arctic fog >has the reputation (I don't know it from experience luckily, I've stuck >to Pacific islands) of being hard to beat. Most of the arguments so far have been based on snow, not fog. Fog is perhaps easier since the main investment is in the fixed cost of ILS (assuming the fog isn't so bad that the airport is below even Cat IIIA minima) rather than huge amounts of snow removal equipment and people to drive the stuff. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:40 From: Chris Elberfeld Subject: AC DC-8 Crash (was Re: HS Trident/More wierdness) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: elberfeld@sprintmail.com Peter & James Liddell wrote: > > The AC aircraft did not crash because of premature thrust > reverser deployment. Here's what happend: > > The DC-8-50, comming infrom Calgary, was on final to > Toronto, at about fifty feet the flaps are supposed to be > Actually, it was a DC-8-63 (CF-TIW), operating AC 621 YUL-YYZ-LAX. This accident occurred on 5 July, 1970, and all 109 people on board perished. (Source: "Aviation Disasters" by David Gero) The rest of your info is right on the money. The FAA's initial soultion was to mandate warning placards against in flight spoiler deployement (One critic said that a "DO NOT CRASH THIS AIRCRAFT" placard would be just as effective). After other (nonfatal) mishaps (Alitalia and Icelandic, I think) caused by premature spoiler deployment, the FAA required a lockout device. From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:40 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Propellor "reverse thrust" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin showie@uo.guelph.ca wrote: > > Do prop planes such as this deploy > reverse thrust by somehow altering the pitch of the propellor blades > to the extent they "blow" air forward? In a nutshell, yes. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:40 From: twdalbello@ucdavis.edu (Teryn Dal Bello) Subject: Re: Propellor "reverse thrust" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Davis showie@uo.guelph.ca wrote: >On the subject of reverse thrust, I took a flight on a Manx Airlines >Shorts 330 a few years back. When the plane landed, a big roar went up >and the plane slowed dramatically. Do prop planes such as this deploy >reverse thrust by somehow altering the pitch of the propellor blades to >the extent they "blow" air forward? Or is something else taking place? Most turboprop airplanes, such as the Beechcraft King Air, have the ability to reverse the pitch of the blades in order to generate negative thrust. For exmaple, a Hercules C-130 has the capability of backing up down a runway, or taxi way, by reversing the pitch of the blades and applying engine power. However, when an airplane is landing and thrust reversing is employed, it may produce more "drag" around the propeller than actual negative thrust due to the complex aerodynamics of reversing thrust in a landing configuration. Some smaller business jets, use 'thrust deflection' as opposed to 'thrust reversing'. Thrust deflection does not direct the thrust forward but actually produces an aerodynamic disturbance by directing the thrust outward at a steep angle. In contrast, thrust reversing actually provides a little component of forward thrust. Teryn DalBello teryn@fml-100.arc.nasa.gov UCD Engineering/NASA ARC From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:41 From: "John Mackesy" Subject: Re: Propellor "reverse thrust" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Melbourne PC User Group, Australia showie@uo.guelph.ca wrote in article ... > On the subject of reverse thrust, I took a flight on a Manx Airlines > Shorts 330 a few years back. When the plane landed, a big roar went > up..... Commonly called "reverse pitch", highly effective at slowing aircraft, also useful for backing into parking spots. Some aircraft utilise "flat pitch", that is, no thrust is generated but drag is equiv. to disk area of prop. John From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:41 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Propellor "reverse thrust" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , showie@uo.guelph.ca wrote: >On the subject of reverse thrust, I took a flight on a Manx Airlines >Shorts 330 a few years back. When the plane landed, a big roar went up >and the plane slowed dramatically. Do prop planes such as this deploy >reverse thrust by somehow altering the pitch of the propellor blades to >the extent they "blow" air forward? Yes. I believe it is called the "beta range" of the prop pitch. Why, I have no idea. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's. From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:41 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Propellor "reverse thrust" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom showie@uo.guelph.ca wrote: > On the subject of reverse thrust, I took a flight on a Manx Airlines > Shorts 330 a few years back. Almost every high-performance piston or turprop aircraft has a variable pitch propellor. A coarse (high) pitch is more efficient at low (climbout) airspeeds, a finer (low) blade pitch is efficient at cruise speeds. On descent, a zero or almost zero pitch creates lots of drag to help control descent airspeed. Most turboprop aircraft have a "beta" or reverse-pitch position which works exactly as you speculate. Lastly, most multi-engine planes can "feather" their props (blades aligned with the airstream). If an engine fails, its prop is feathered to minimize drag. Depending on the sophistication of the aircraft, prop pitch is either manually controlled by the pilot or automatically controlled. Once the basic blade pitch is set, a governor mechanism controls prop pitch to keep it turning at a constant speed, even if airspeed or power setting is changed. Pitch adjustment is usually done with hydraulic pressure and a piston mechanism; some are electrically controlled. "Ground adjustable" props can be set to either a climb or cruise setting during preflight, depending on the type of flying you plan to do. Lastly, some props are designed to flex and change pitch as the loads on the prop change. Prop design is an art all in itself. I know just enough to know I have barely addressed the topic! Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:41 From: Robert Reed Subject: Re: Propellor "reverse thrust" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ASPECT One Reply-To: aspect@wcinet.net showie@uo.guelph.ca wrote: > On the subject of reverse thrust, I took a flight on a Manx Airlines > Shorts 330 a few years back. When the plane landed, a big roar went up > and the plane slowed dramatically. Do prop planes such as this deploy > reverse thrust by somehow altering the pitch of the propellor blades to > the extent they "blow" air forward? Or is something else taking place? The answer is Yes. The power levers to the PT6 and most other turboprops have a flight range where the engines act much like a piston engine using the throttle levers. However, on the ground, the levers are lifted and pulled back over a stop into a mode known as "beta mode". Movement of the levers in beta mode give the levers manual command of the propeller pitch while the engine speed stays more or less at a set speed. The propeller pitch command in beta ranges from several degrees reverse pitch (I don't recall exactly how much) through flat pitch to several degrees positive or forward pitch. It makes ground handling simple, and the wierd noise you heard happens near the flat pitch range. Even near flat pitch the braking effect is strong. You can even back up the airplane by moving the levers back into reverse pitch. It is not often used for this however, as it can sometimes cause brake problems if the brakes are applied while going backwards. Robert Reed http://www.wcinet.net/~aspect From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:41 From: clough@gis.net (Brian E Clough) Subject: Re: Propellor "reverse thrust" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com showie@uo.guelph.ca wrote: >On the subject of reverse thrust, I took a flight on a Manx Airlines >Shorts 330 a few years back. When the plane landed, a big roar went up >and the plane slowed dramatically. Do prop planes such as this deploy >reverse thrust by somehow altering the pitch of the propellor blades to >the extent they "blow" air forward? Or is something else taking place? You got it. I remember once when a C-130 had rolled over its own intercom cord. I was marshalling, and I signaled the pilot to back the plane up. Th reversed thrust and elmost blew me accross the taxiway. Most modern turboprop engines run at a constant RPM at all times. Power changes are affected solely by prop pitch changes. BTW we did get the cord out from under the nose gear. Brian E Clough "Let's drive fast and eat CHEESE!!!" -- The High Commander From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:42 From: zinegreen@aol.com (ZineGreen) Subject: Re: Propellor "reverse thrust" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Yes, a turboprop engine does reverse (though I don;t know of a reciprocating, i.e. piston engine that does.) The blades of the propeller pass through flat pitch (high RPM) to the reverse range, known as "beta-range" in turboprop-speak, which drives the air forward instead of backward. This is accomplished by lifting the power levers over a mechanical and/or electric lock and bringing them rearward. As with a pure jet, you can hear the engines reverse on landing. The amount of power available in reverse is restricted by torque, temperature (ITT, TIT, EGT), or RPM (n1 or n2), depending on the engine. From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:42 From: luisma@spainmail.com (Luis Manuel Perez Llera) Subject: Re: Why no wingtips for B777??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unisource Espana NEWS SERVER El día 08 Aug 97 05:41:16 , David Lednicer dijo: >k_ish wrote: >> Winglets have nothing to do with handling or ride characteristics. > > Not true - winglets add to the effect of dihedral of a wing. I >know of at least one airplane where winglets were added to increase >dihedral, with the drag improvement being only a secondary consideration. IMHO, winglets are introduced for drag reduction purposes. You have to note that they were first developed in the 70s fuel crisis. No doubt they have also some effects on the A/C's lateral stability. BTW, does anybody know if it exists a general stablished theory to design both winglets and vortices generators? AFAIK, they are only a trial-and-error matter. From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:42 From: bi737@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel G. Sharpes) Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH Reply-To: bi737@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel G. Sharpes) In a previous article, wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) says: >Someone will have the approach plate for that field and can >tell us what the minimums are with and without the glideslope. The plate is available at www.jeppesen.com/guam.html The initial approach altitude is 2,600 ft MSL (2,344 ft AGL) with a descent to 2,000 ft MSL (1,744 ft AGL) after passing 7.0 miles from the UNZ VOR. Stay at 2,000 ft until either intercepting the glide slope (which was inop) or over the GUQQY outer marker (1.7 miles from UNZ). At GUQQY, descend to 1,440 ft MSL (1,184 ft AGL) until passing UNZ, then descend to the Minimum Decision Altitude of 560 ft MSL (304 ft AGL). MDA for the ILS is 456 ft (200 ft). Two towers are shown along the approach path. The first is close to GUQQY and has a height of 1,190 ft and the second is just north of the VOR and has a height of 724 ft. -- Dan From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:42 From: rdd@nospam.netcom.com Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam 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 faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: >Other posts have done a good job describing the function of the ILS and >glide slope. When I was obtaining my instrument rating at Honolulu >International back in the 1970s, I shot full ILS approaches and >localizer-only appproaches, mostly at night as that proved the easiest >time to schedule lessons. The Cessna 206 I was flying did not have an >autopilot so all my approaches were flown by hand. If anything, the >localizer approach was easier as I merely had to descend in steps to >specific altitudes at specific points and then level off until reaching >the next point of descent which was marked either by a marker beacon >(radio signal, not a light) or crossing a VOR (another type of radio >signal). The rate of descent didn't matter as long as you didn't descend >before reaching the descent point or descend below the next specified >altitude. The full ILS with glide slope was a little harder (without an >autopilot) simply because you had to maintain a specific rate of descent >throughout the approach. But both approach types are easily mastered by a >competent student instrument pilot with only a hundred or so hours of >total flight time. And how many times does the student get to fly them? A typical 747 crew is going to average 60-80 hours of flight time a month. The typical flight will be 10-13 hours. That is going to be 4-8 landings a month. Divide that by two, you have the actual "pilot flying" responsibilities. With ultra-long-haul flying, the situation is probably worse than this. And each of those landings will typically be made into a modern, well-equipped airport. On the other hand, pilots for carriers like Southwest can do 6-8 landings a *day*. Most carriers do not augment this lack of experience with supplemental training. Most rely upon the high experience levels of the crew being a sufficient safety net. You lose this, of course, when you start dealing with ab initio carriers. This is why some ab initio carriers actually expend quite a bit of effort to maintain currency. It was Cathay Pacific, if memory serves, that was going to buy a 747-400 just to shoot touch-and goes, at one point. Non-precision approaches--particularly NDB approaches--have been decried by the Air Line Pilots Association and other groups as being incompatible with safety in commercial transport operations, since at least the 1950s. Non-precision approaches are not in of themselves unsafe, but they do create certain human demands which are difficult to compensate for. Many CFIT incidents occur when pilots have to "go back to basics." At least a few accidents have been caused by crews performing procedure turns in the wrong direction; they are forced to revert to these procedures when radar and other modern accessories aren't available. And remember, you're forced to revert to these rusty skills in bad weather. In this case, you lose a few safety features. You lose vertical guidance. Suppose you don't have your altimeter set correctly. As you DIVE to maintain the minimum descent altitude, which is typically only a few hundred feet above field elevation, you don't have much time to react to procedural errors. On the other hand, an ILS approach usually starts with level flight twice as high as that. You intercept a glide slope, and have several cross-checks as to altitude and signal integrity. None of this necessarily has any bearing on the latest Korean Airlines crash, but you do need to keep in mind that as a GA pilot, you will be exposed to types of flying and to procedures that some airline pilots may have never had to deal with. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@cactus.org "Bother," said Pooh when his engine quit on take-off. From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:43 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >A typical 747 crew is going to average 60-80 hours of flight time a month. >The typical flight will be 10-13 hours. That is going to be 4-8 landings >a month. Divide that by two, you have the actual "pilot flying" >responsibilities. With ultra-long-haul flying, the situation is probably >worse than this. Correct. United pilots have told me that with the really long 747-400 flights, which have not one but two relief pilots who fly only the cruise portion of the flight, the relief pilots don't manage the three takeoffs and landings within three months needed to maintain their currency. They have to go back and fly the sims to stay current. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:43 From: Ron Adams Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam 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 jf mezei wrote: > Could someone put this missing glide slope in perspective ? > > Just how important is it to a landing in darkness with little or no > visibility ? What other instruments/information would have been > available to the pilot to help him stay on track to the runway ? The important point is that the glide slope enables an accurate approach path to the touchdown zone on the runway. Without the glide slope, the approach weather must be better and the minimum descent altitude is much higher. Ron Adams, 767/757 Captain From kls Fri Aug 29 00:53:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Aug 97 00:53:43 From: Phil Wood Subject: Re: Korean Air 801 crashed on approach to Guam References: